The freethinking community of Tucson is not a homogeneous organization. It contains at least as many opinions as there are members. Some leaders within the community refer to their job as “herding cats” but others say it’s more like “herding butterflies.” Cats are limited to two dimensions, after all. However, there does appear to be a bias toward one end of the political spectrum.

Jim Wilson ponders the question, “Why do Freethinkers tend to be so liberal?”

Nonbelievers, Skeptics, Atheists and Secular Humanists tend to hang out at the left side of American politics and many unabashedly identify as liberals, progressives, or support the Left. Other political philosophies can be found, however.  There are Free-Marketers, Ayn Rand fans, and Libertarians along with the occasional self-identified conservative. Some gravitate toward philosophies that fall outside the conventional political spectrum which indicates that it is not necessary to be left-leaning to be an Atheist or Skeptic. Apparently, Atheists, Agnostics, and Skeptics from all over the political spectrum are less visible than their left leaning compatriots. Still, many Atheists are liberals and progressives; why is that?

Perhaps the conservative movement has declared Freethinkers to be an enemy.  The Right Wing conservative media outlets and think tanks have painted Atheists, Secularists, Secular Humanists, Evolutionists, and Intellectuals as the bad guys.  They believe Freethinkers are communists and un-American. Some go as far as blaming Freethinkers for the attacks on September 11^th.  Many conservatives believe Freethinkers are responsible for many of America’s problems and they long for the times when Freethinkers were less visible and less vocal.  They align themselves with ideologues such as Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and Rick Santorum. The Right Wing has become the home for those who want: religious monuments in government buildings, teacher led prayers in public schools, and science classes that teach the Biblical creation myth instead of science. They are antagonistic to church and state separation, and favor using government to promote religious values.  Above all, the Right Wing is most likely to affiliate itself with the type of moral guardians who vocally oppose birth control, reproductive choice, and marriage equality.

Maybe it’s within the personality of the Freethinker. We live in a very religious society and people who reject religious views tend to be the sort who question other mainstream values such as those associated with marriage, family life, sexuality, artistic expression, etc.  Reactionary elements within the Right Wing demonize and alienate this personality type while the Left embraces it.   Our politics are dominated by two catch-all political parties and Freethinkers such as Atheist, Agnostics, Skeptics, and Scientists are not welcomed by the Right Wing and by necessity identify with the Left.

While the conservative and liberal political philosophies are not ideal, Freethinkers and non-believers tend to be more sympathetic to the liberal side of the so-called “culture war.” Political issues outside the social arena such as the economy or military intervention are areas where Freethinkers and non-believers often disagree and result in interesting discussions at many of our gatherings.

FreeThought Arizona has members and guest speakers from all over the political spectrum.  Many guest speakers identify themselves as liberal or progressive but some prominent ones do not. All that is necessary is that they support science, reason, and the separation of church and state.

Last night, a small subset of the Tucson Atheists met in the Fronimos restaurant. Tucson Atheists hosts quite a few meetups. We have a diverse membership and it makes perfect sense to have many different kinds of meetings. Last night’s meeting is called, “Caffeinated Godlessly.” It is held every other Thursday and the current venue is Fronimos, a Greek restaurant, where the food is good, reasonably priced, and they have a nice area for discussion.

The subject of the meeting was, “Should Atheists be organizing politically?” The organizer is Nancy and she kicked off the discussion. Apparently, there is a new political party called the National Atheist Party. Nancy wanted to find out from those attending if it is a good idea to have an Atheist political party. Gregg, an occasional contributor to this blog, has been checking into it and was familiar with the organization. Most of us at the meeting were not very familiar with the specifics which is why the question was posed to be more general than, “What do you think of the National Atheist Party?”

After the requisite discussions about the meaning of Atheism, a frequently debated question in our group, we started kicking around the positive and negatives of organizing Atheists politically. There were some fundamental discussions such as:

• Would you vote for a poorly qualified candidate simply because he or she is an Atheist?
• What would we feel about a “National Christian Party?”
• Are we defined by our Atheism?
• Is there anything wrong with an elected representative taking governing guidance from an invisible entity?

As I mentioned earlier, we are a rather diverse group. We tend to think independently and the discussions were lively. Yet, as heated as the discussions were, everyone left the meeting with the full intention of returning in two weeks. Many of the discussions were continued in the parking lot. No one stomped off and we continued an ad hoc meeting with respect and camaraderie. Amazing!

The closest thing to a result is that most felt that the National Atheist Party may not be the best idea but we would still like to see more Atheists in office. The question of Atheism is very narrow and Atheists are all over the map politically. The difficulty becomes apparent as soon as the political party starts building a platform. Each plank that doesn’t relate specifically to the Atheist question will not be universally accepted and cause minor divisions. In some cases, people will reject the party entirely if it takes a controversial position and all positions other than the “god” question are controversial in the Atheist community.

There are existing “secular” organizations that we should support such as: The Secular Coalition for America, the Secular Coalition for Arizona, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, and the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State to name a few. There are many more. Most of us are not defined by our Atheism but it is part of who we are. Finally, there were some strong feelings about our elected representatives taking guidance from invisible (or imaginary) entities.

Jim Wilson makes the case for legalization of recreational marijuana use:

“If you don’t believe drugs have done good things for us, do me a favor. Go home tonight. Take all your albums, all your tapes and all your CDs and burn them. ‘Cause you know what, the musicians that made all that great music that’s enhanced your lives throughout the years were rrreal fxxxing high on drugs”

-Bill Hicks

In the series BBC’s Stephen Fry in America, Stephen Fry tours each U.S state in a London Taxi cab stopping at historical sites, hanging out with locals, and generally doing some really interesting things. In the final episode Stephen Fry accompanies a California sheriff on a drug bust. The sheriff’s men invade a man’s home and seize several marijuana plants he was growing. We live in a place where it is criminal offense to grow the wrong kind of plant.

Later in the episode, Fry spent some time with individuals who were in favor of legalizing recreational marijuana. As a group, pot users tend to be harmless. Unlike alcohol users they are not likely to get into bar brawls or riots. According to comedian Kat Williams, marijuana’s only side effects are “hungry, happy and sleepy.” For decades millions of Americans have enjoyed recreational cannabis use. If you have never tried the drug, it is likely that some of your friends or family have and perhaps still enjoy its use. The idea that all of these people should have been arrested for it is absurd.

The fact that a hard working American cannot legally relax with a joint or a bong hit after a long day of work makes a mockery of the claims that this country is the land of the free. Reefer Madness is a myth. The truth of the matter is that pot users tend to be regular Americans just like everyone else. The vast majority of them do not become addicts of other drugs or drains on society. In fact, many hardworking individuals like Olympic athlete Michael Phelps, Musician Louis Armstrong, and Cosmologist Carl Sagan were all pot users. Additionally, a great many of the artists and entertainers that may that have done much to make life more enjoyable use cannabis as a way of relaxing or a source of inspiration. The suburban house moms that support zero tolerance are often hypocrites who have either tried the drug themselves or cruise around listening to a bunch of routine tokers on their soft rock radio stations.

A growing number of Americans now realize that the war on cannabis has cost this country billions of dollars, created horrible black markets, and done little to keep drugs off the streets. A recent Public Policy Polling survey showed that in Colorado legalizing pot got a higher approval rating than either Mitt Romney or Barack Obama. Acting on this, Colorado, Washington, and Oregon will have ballot measures this year for legalizing recreational marijuana use.

Bringing a major cash crop into the economy and allowing it to be taxed would be good for the economy and reduce deficit spending. Furthermore, legally selling marijuana could be a profitable business venture or source of employment for many impoverished Americans who don’t have a lot of other options. Let’s legalize it and eliminating any barriers of entry for those wishing to make money selling it. Additionally, money will be saved from policing and punishing people caught with this plant. It may also be a boon to the snack food industry.

However both of the major parties are vehemently opposed to legalization, despite its popularity among much of their base that can’t see the economic benefits. President Obama has cracked down on medical marijuana dispensaries far more than his predecessor. Mitt Romney has made it clear that he is vehemently opposed to ending the pointless expensive war against pot smokers. Romney states:

“If you’d like to get someone who is in favor of marijuana, I know there are some on the Democratic side of the aisle who will be happy to get in your campaign. But I’m opposed to it, and if you elect me president, you’re not going to see legalized marijuana. I’m going to fight it tooth and nail”

Of course there will be some people who are happy about this. The thugs that run the drug cartels are thrilled to see government policies raise the price of their product, while doing nothing to decrease demand. The alcohol industry is another beneficiary. It lobbies heavily to keep prohibition against what they see as a competitor intoxicant on the books. Ironically, alcohol is by any conventional standards a far more dangerous drug than pot.

The case for legalization is clear.

Here is another opinion piece from Jim Wilson. This would be a good time to remind the reader that the opinions expressed in this blog belong to the authors, in this case Jim Wilson, and don’t represent the official positions of FreeThought Arizona or necessarily the opinions of other members of FreeThought Arizona:

In conversations with my libertarian friends, I sometimes ask: “Is a positive thing that bosses can make demands of their employees during that apply to their time outside of work? For example, is a positive development that some bosses forbid their employees from using tobacco products even when not on the job? ”

A consistent libertarian would have to say yes, which they typically do. They tell me “people should be able to do anything with their property they like, so long as doing so does not interfere with the property rights of others.” Apparently, this extends into the personal arena. Any consistent free marketer is forced to conclude that bosses should be free to ask employees do whatever crazy thing they want, and fire them for not doing so.

Many libertarians and quite a few conservatives will agree that bosses should be free to make employees wear silly uniforms, get tested for drugs, or refuse service to people of different ethnicities. This is usually accompanied with arguments that the market penalizes firms that practice these kinds of policies with loss of business. Whether the market would do this and to what extent it would is highly debatable, but it is consistent with the view that people should be free to do business or refuse business with whomever they choose, on their own terms. I am of the opinion that the government has done a lot to artificially shift the balance of power from employers to employees and that many of the existing limits placed on the power of employers are actually a good thing.

However, if we assume the more typical libertarian position that there should be no restriction on the power of employers then I find that many libertarians are guilty of a huge inconsistency. Many of the people who argue for nearly unrestricted powers for bosses absolutely believe that they should never be allowed to require their employees join a labor union. It is a huge double standard to support so-called “right to work” laws and yet think the bosses should be free to ask nearly anything else of their employees.

The normal response when challenged is to say, “Voluntary union membership is fine, but involuntary unions should be outlawed.” In other contexts they argue that “no one forces you to work for your boss.” In other words, doing what is required in any private sector job is a voluntary act whether it be taking out trash or cooking hamburgers. This in itself is somewhat debatable as many people do their jobs out of economic necessity and really don’t have much say in the options given to them. But if we assume, for the sake of argument, that all private sector jobs are completely voluntary then how can we say that being asked to join a union is any different than any other workplace demand?

Many would argue that bosses or property owners may not want closed shops and that unions force it on them. This may be true, but certainly somewhere there is a potential boss that wants a union-only shop. From a free market perspective shouldn’t he be allowed to open one? Are peaceful negotiations between individuals and their employees the state’s business?

I don’t like the idea of the closed shops. I would prefer organized labor not use that technique. Being made to pay dues as a condition of employment does not appeal to me. At the same time, I do not like the government telling individuals how they can negotiate with their employees or how their business must be organized. I would prefer complete government neutrality towards labor activism. That is, government should neither actively promote nor disrupt union activity.

The laws that gave labor unions legal recognition came with a heavy price for the unions. The Taft-Hartley amendments to the Wagoner act, for example, largely forbid organized labor from using the tactics that got the act passed in the first place. These tactics include “wild cat” strikes, secondary boycotts, and sympathy strikes and boycotts (strikes by laborers in one firm or industry in support of strikers in another). Furthermore, the new amendments required laborers to give notice 80 days before strikes and other forms of bargaining activity. The current regimes require a majority of workers to form a legally recognized union as opposed to unrecognized non-majority unions and this rule greatly reduces effectiveness.

The labor movement emerged out of the free market, without any government assistance or recognition. Its greatest success came before it was encumbered with state recognition and the laws that came with it. A consistent libertarian should drop any anti-organized labor prejudices and realize that empowered work force can be part of the free market and can even out the distribution of power in the economy.

Jim Wilson reports on what’s going on in Lubbock, Texas and shares his opinions on the presidential race:

In a recent appeal for more money to be spent on public safety, Tom Head, a county Judge from Lubbock Texas, had the following to say:

He (President Obama) is going to try to hand over the sovereignty of the United States to the UN. Okay, what’s going to happen when that happens? I’m thinking worst case scenario here: Civil unrest, civil disobedience, civil war maybe. We’re not just talking a few riots here and demonstrations. We’re talking Lexington-Concord take up arms and get rid of the guy.

Now what’s going to happen if we do that, if the public decides to do that? He’s going to send in U.N. troops — with the little blue beanies. I don’t want ‘em in Lubbock County. Okay. So I’m going to stand in front of their armored personnel carrier and say ‘you’re not coming in here’. “And the sheriff, I’ve already asked him, I said ‘you gonna back me’ he said, ‘yeah, I’ll back you.’”

The local Sheriff Kelly Rowe denies ever having any such conversations with Judge Head. I just don’t see Judge Head’s scenarios playing out. The idea that Mitt Romney is the only thing standing between us and a United Nation’s takeover of our country and possible civil war is just crazy. Head has since stated that this is only a worst case scenario but that hardly makes it sound less insane.

Of course, every U.S. president has had a hatedom—a group of people dedicated to vocally expressing their disapproval of him and his actions. Presidential hatedoms all have their pet conspiracy theories. George W. Bush for example was accused of orchestrating the September 11th attacks, while Clinton was alleged to be killing his associates. It turns out Reagan really was selling weapons to an enemy state to fund a secret war. Maybe this is just cultural near-sightedness but Obama conspiracy theories strike me as more wide- spread and crazier sounding than those assigned to other presidents. So many conservatives want to see the guy as some sort of anti-Christ and want to see themselves as living in times of cosmic struggle between good and evil, or they want to believe that Obama is some sort of global Marxist and we are on our way to civil war or the gulag.

Before Obama, I have heard American’s threaten to leave the country when candidates they disliked got elected. Now there is talk of preparations for civil war and rock musician Ted Nugent making statements like, “If Barack Obama becomes the president in November again, I will either be dead or in jail by this time next year.” I seriously do not see how Obama is different enough from his opponent to justify such and attitude.

The truth about Obama is far more mundane. Obama is a president who has kept pretty close to the country’s political establishment and in fact, represents the interests of much of the same corporate elite Romney does. Though I have mixed feelings about Ron Paul, I fully agree with his assertion that rather than being a Marxist or Socialist, Obama is a corporatist—one who favors “government officials who often act in collusion with their favored business interests to design polices that give those interests an advantageous position to the detriment of both competitors and consumers.” In other words Obama’s administration has been a continuation of most of the policies of his recent predecessors.

As evidence, Obama has extended Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy and presided over free-trade deals that most benefit corporations to the objections of much of his base. He has called for expanded Bush’s defense spending and has increased oil exploration/drilling in the U.S. He increased the deportation of illegal immigrants and the raids on distributors of medical marijuana. He has also appointed a former Monsanto executive as his senior advisor to the FDA. His much feared health care package ended up being the scheme to force everyone to buy private insurance. It also happened to be similar to the scheme his opponent, Mitt Romney, implemented in Massachusetts.

I’m not enthusiastic about either of our major presidential candidates this year but, I figure there is much real stuff to criticize both candidates for, without making unsubstantiated, apocalyptic claims about UN invasions, fake birth certificates, global conspiracies or the coming of the anti-Christ.

[Editor’s note: Jim’s opinions should not be construed as the opinion of everyone in FreeThought Arizona. Links were added to allow the reader the ability to look into specific assertions.]

Jim Wilson knocks around a few feelings. Apparently, he’s interested in allowing more than our thoughts to be free:

Did you know that women in the State of New York are legally free to go bare-chested in public? This has been true ever since the 1992 New York Court of Appeals case: People v. Ramona Santorelli and Mary Lou Schloss. In this case, the defendants were arrested for showing too much of their breasts. They were effectively able to effectively challenge the law as being discriminatory since it defines the ‘private or intimate parts’ of a woman’s but not a man’s body as including a specific part of the breast.

Since this case, there have been women wrongfully arrested for exposing their breasts and one received a $29,000 settlement. In the meantime, a “Topfreedom” movement has grown to promote the freedom of women to go topless around the world. In this country, victories include the freedom to breastfeed on federal property. Two groups have emerged: the Topfree Equal Rights Association, which helps women charged with illegal toplessness and GoTopless which organizes demonstrations.

I support the right of women to publicly go out bare-chested. It is consistent with my opposition to any government restrictions on harmless personal freedom. There is no harm caused by women going about topless. Men have been shirtless in public for ages and certainly did not cause any demonstrable harm. It’s a bit silly that women can wear extremely revealing clothing, leaving little to the imagination and yet we draw an arbitrary line at the full breast. Partial breast exposure is apparently OK but showing the wrong parts is somehow taboo.

Why is this considered taboo in the first place? We allow men to go bare-chested why not women? Women’s breasts are for milk production and a perfectly normal part of human biology. There is no need to scandalize it or make it taboo. The female breast plays a role in sexual attraction along with every other part of the body for some individuals and yet I don’t see a push to have us all wearing Burqas, in western society. The most attractive and seductive part of a woman is her face for me and many others yet there is no movement in this country to prevent facial nudity.

In the western world, people of both sexes are free to dress as modestly or immodestly as they want. Why not take this principle to the next logical step? Despite what some Muslim clerics claim, there is no evidence that female immodesty creates earthquakes or other natural disasters. In other traditional cultures around the world it is perfectly normal women to be topless throughout their daily activities. The children in these cultures are not scandalized by this.

A positive development is that western society is dumping Victorian prudery and is more open about embracing the sexual aspects of human nature. It is time to dismiss the notion that breasts are somehow indecent. Human bodies come in many shapes and sizes, so why single out this particular anatomical feature for censorship? It seems that for many males in this culture, breasts have some sort of mystical status, which is in part because exposing them is somehow taboo. Many males may also have an idealized view of how breast should look, and living in a world where women go topless may give them a more realistic view.

Perhaps changing the law would not actually change much. I’m sure most businesses would keep their “no shoes, no shirt, no service” policies. Schools would almost certainly maintain their dress code. Of course, the topless bar industry might be forced to modify their business model to remain relevant. Yet after a while, we’d all become accustomed to the sight of bare-chested men and women alike. We can look to Europe as a good example – across the pond, topless beaches and spas abound and society survives in spite of the partial nudity.

In summary, I support the pro-topless movement. It’s time to modernize our modesty laws and finally leave the Victorian age behind us. It’s rational, it’s practical, and it costs us nothing.

Jim Wilson’s views on the boycott of Chick-fil-A:

A friend of mine recently asked: Do you think Chick-fil-A throws all the left wings in the trash? Or maybe they sell only right wing meat?

I avoid fast food when I can.  It’s unhealthy; it cost money I’d rather spend elsewhere; and the industry has a nasty habit of cynical marketing targeting children.  I am unlikely eat at Chick-fil-A. So, they are not losing my business by promoting bigotry and government intrusion into people’s personal lives. If I was a customer, I would boycott them.

I predict that ultimately Chick-fil-A’s decision to become politically active will hurt them. People do not want their fast-food choices to have political ramifications.  The last thing we want to think about is the culture war, when we order a sandwich.  Politicized businesses are annoying, and scare off at least half of their would-be customers, especially when the activism has nothing to do with the product being sold.  Time will declare Chick-fil-A to be on the losing side of the culture war.  After all the general trend is that Americans are becoming more sexually open and more embracing of personal freedom than ever. Religious conservatives hate this.  The traditionalist old guard is not getting any younger, and won’t be around forever and ironically, eating at Chick-fil-A won’t help with them live longer.

Despite the long-term prospects, promoting bigotry has worked to the company’s advantage today. Mike Huckabee an advocate of Bronze Age idiocy has declared August 1st, National Chick-fil-A appreciation day. Sarah and Todd Palin and many other politicians from the socially interventionist wing of the Republican Party have made a point to show support for the restaurant and got nice photo-opts in the process. This has attracted long lines of ignoramuses willing and ready to hand over their money to the company that donates to hatred and bigotry.

There is irony in this.  In most contexts, self-proclaimed conservatives are fans of shrinking or limiting government.  Why do they support government being in the business of regulating marriage? Why should conservatives be so anxious to support an organization that wants to make government’s burdensome role of regulating marriage permanent?  Government promotion of marriage and “traditional values” is a form of social engineering. Shouldn’t conservatives who are friends of personal freedom and limited government oppose this?  As far as I am concerned, what consenting adults do in their own home is none of government’s business no matter how much Chic-fil-A lobbies for it.  Hat’s off to the Libertarian Republicans, who refuse to support Chick-fil-A and the New Hampshire franchise owner who still participates in gay pride events.

Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy says his company’s political stance is motivated by his concern that we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say, “We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage.”  He makes God, sound like a petty vindictive twelve year old who wishes harm upon those who question him. His company has contributed lobbying efforts for government to have a bigger role in promoting his values.  Government is here to protect our freedoms not enforce the religious prohibitions of an apocalyptic business-man. The fact that government prevents two men from marrying means it is doing a terrible job at protecting our freedoms. How can you say this is the land of the free when two men or women, or three or four people cannot all be married?  At least marriage to multiple people was allowed in the Bible and it just wasn’t always voluntary. On a related note, one of the organizations Chick-fil-A supported also, spent thousands of dollars trying to prevent congress from denouncing Uganda’s horrendous “Kill the Gays Bill”, which is what it sounds like!

I support the bigots, reactionaries, religious dogmatists and general low-lifes that run Chick-fil-A the freedom to hold their beliefs and express them but I won’t support them with my very hard earned money. I support the ACLU’s fight against the city governments of Chicago and Boston as they attempt to block the opening of Chick-fil-A locations in their cities. I do not think bigotry should be rewarded with business but I also think using the government to penalize free expression is wrong. Free speech is one of the few things I come close to holding sacred. I stand equally for your right to say stupid and ignorant things and my right to tell you how stupid and ignorant they are. It’s the free market of ideas. Banning a company only legitimizes its cause and allows the opportunistic, self-righteous, Christo-fascist at Chick-fil-A to play the victim card. It’s annoying enough when reactionaries whine about how persecuted they are. Let’s not give them a legitimate reason to do so. This goes for other despicable species of walking excrement like neo-Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan.  I support the ACLU for protecting their rights to free expression despite my complete and utter loathing for every disgusting thing they stand for. Allowing them to discredit themselves on the market place of ideas has done more has made much more of a positive impact than any government repression could.

Some people claim that they are supporting Chick-fil-A as a way of standing up for their right to free speech. That’s all well and good. I wonder if they would also support an openly racist establishment for exercising its free speech. Frankly, if you want to support free speech heroes, why not buy a Playboy or Hustler magazine? These have done more to promote the rights to free expression than any bigoted restaurant chain could ever dream. Others are there because they share the organization’s bigoted worldview, and think it would be great if the government did too. I am staying away. I can’t stand long lines and crowded restaurants especially when the lines and crowds are filled with the type of loud-mouth, self-righteous, ultra-religious, ignorant bigots that something like an “Appreciate Chick-fil-A Day” would attract. Hopefully the chicken gives them heartburn!

Jim Wilson discovered some children’s books that are a little disturbing.

There are delightful children books such as:

• Help! Mom! There are Liberals Under My Bed!,
• Help! Mom! Hollywood is in My Hamper,
• Help! Mom! The Ninth Circuit Nabbed the Nativity!

On the other-side, there are such titles as:

• Why Mommy is a Democrat,
• NO, George, NO! The Re-Parenting of George W. Bush, or
• Momma Voted for Obama!!

There are more subtle books for your child’s indoctrination such as Teach a Donkey to Fish where a young elephant named Goppy teaches his donkey friend Libby the joys of working for herself. As one Amazon reviewer asked, “Whatever happened to the little engine that could?”

Something about all the titles listed above just rubs me the wrong way. Perhaps it is the crude way they over simplify the issues, or caricature people who disagree with them. Perhaps it is because they all target children who are too young for nuanced political discussion, and are still very impressionable. Then again, maybe it’s the fact that partisan politics is such a drag, and young children should not be forced to sit through it. There must be countless other books that offer positive lessons and are not built upon partisan hackery.

Seriously, what child would wants a book talking about how great president Obama is or what evil monsters Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy are? These are far more entertaining to the parents than the children. Honestly, talking to young children should be opportunity to get one’s mind off of mud-slinging political drudgery.

The more useful question is: how to talk about politics with one’s children? I am a fan of a free market of ideas. Parents should let their kids know what they think and why when children show interest in political questions, but kids should have room to develop their own thoughts and become their own people. I don’t have kids of my own but if I did it would be much more important to me to show them how to think than teach them what to think.

Views I disagree with would still be presented fairly. I don’t call the people who support the welfare state lazy envious bums who to steal other people’s money or people oppose it as heartless, greed-driven reactionaries. Though people fitting these stereotypes exist, they are a minority. I would do my best to explain my position, while at the same time explain where gray area and ambiguity leads to controversy. Many parents want to turn their kids into good Democrats or Republicans and fall into the trap of indoctrination. I for one, have little use for either of our major parties and think party loyalists are often the least interesting or well informed people out there. I’d want to show my kids a wide range of schools of thought and thinkers that would not be easily classified in the conservative vs. liberal spectrum.

I have the same attitude, towards religion too. I’m an Atheist and I would hope any kids I have share my Skepticism but whatever attitude they take it is more important to me that are able explain why they hold their position than hold any specific position. I find making a subject taboo often mystifies it and makes it more interesting anyway.

I did stumble onto a few politically oriented children’s books that I could possibly get behind: Two Kings which concerns GLBT issues and the rather self explanatory It’s Just a Plant: A Children’s Story of Marijuana. Conservatives might label these liberal books but some of the biggest advocates of gay rights and legalizing marijuana I know are ardent free-marketers.

With this in mind, I’ll ask our readers with more parenting experience: When and what have you taught your kids about politics? How important is it that they share your beliefs, and would you use any books described in this blog post? In the mean time, the only liberals or conservatives anywhere near my bed will be the ones I invited over.

In a Skeptics of Tucson meeting a few months back the subject was “What is your gris gris?” The idea came from Penn Jillette. He’s a very outspoken Atheist and Skeptic. In fact, being the louder, bigger part of the Penn & Teller duo some say he’s outspoken on just about everything he believes in. A “gris gris” according to Penn is that ONE thing you might hold back from your Skepticism. It’s like the uber-skeptic that carries the “lucky” coin or has some other irrational belief. So what? It’s an interesting concept and probably true for most people and no big deal. But, what about the irrational belief that comes from belonging to a given group?

A few days back, I suggested that there should be a discussion about limiting the magazine capacity of firearms. It was on the heels of the Aurora tragedy where a 100 round magazine was used. There were some commonalities with our own Tucson shooting tragedy that happened in January 2011 in that there was a high capacity magazine involved. Most of the feedback came from a couple of libertarian leaning and “gun nut” readers that ANY discussion of ANY type of gun control was definitely off the table as they accused me of being a knee jerk reactionary. Seems to me, that their reaction was to hold their hands over their ears and say “la, la, la.”

Also a few days back in another blog entry, I pointed out an inconsistency in an impassioned speech delivered by Jamy Ian Swiss at the annual The Amazing Meeting held in Las Vegas. Judging from the response to the speech, the crowd was with Jamy on not being OK with excluding Christians from the ranks and also agreed that those that have a problem with vaccinations are to be universally shunned. It seemed a bit inconsistent to me but the New York magician received a standing ovation from the crowd.

On yet another blog post, I pointed out that there is a large segment of the population that feels justified in blaming Evolution and Atheists for every evil thing that ever happens. We’ve been blamed for hurricanes, shooting sprees, earthquakes, droughts, and rampant fires, to name a few.

In these cases, the argument is over before it started:

• If the government is involved, then it’s bad.
• If someone disagrees with the groups belief, it’s OK to say “Screw Him” and
• if something bad happens , blame the a group you don’t agree with.

Ideally, the FreeThinker can put aside the stock beliefs and evaluate the world free of the preconceived notions. The best we can hope for is that we at least understand ourselves and our own prejudices. I realize that it is more difficult to be critical of those that we generally agree with.

It’s easy to read a book that you agree with. Have you ever read a book from the “other team?” Oh sure, some of us read the Bible but how about reading a book on Applied Kinesiology such as Force vs. Power by Dr. David R. Hawkins? I read this book because someone gave it to me and I thought it might be a great subject for a Skeptics of Tucson meeting. I read it. It was hard to get through it but I did and we had a good meeting on the subject. I tried to do a double blind test as described in the book and posted a video of the test. It wasn’t surprising that in a room full of Skeptics that I couldn’t get the test to work. I couldn’t even get a baseline. Fortunately a believer posted his own blind test and I was able to use it at the meeting. I have to thank the poster for being so honest about something that he really wanted to believe in. I reviewed the book on Amazon. I gave it a fair review but the one comment received said that I didn’t have an open mind and that’s why Applied Kinesiology doesn’t work for me. What tripe! Something that is true should be able to withstand the doubter’s skepticism and besides I DID take the time to read the book, the reviewed DIDN’T take the time to consider the points I made in the review. It is another case of the argument being over before it starts. The reviewer believes what Dr. Hawkins is selling, so there can be no discussion to the contrary.

No matter where you are currently, there can always be discussion or there can be no progress. Reevaluation of current positions held is not the end of the world. Honest, fair communication is always welcomed. Ever start to make a point and have the person you’re talking to start shaking his head before the point has been presented? I don’t care for it myself. To me it’s as if the person has clapped his hands over his ears and starts saying, “la, la, la.” When someone holds an unalterable belief, rational or irrational, strictly because of group identity it’s the same thing. There are many ideas that are held by Penn Jillette that I don’t agree with but when a caller with a persuasive argument changed his mind on his radio program, my respect for the man increased significantly.

Keeping an open mind is the same thing as being willing to change one’s mind and Skepticism isn’t about what we believe but how we get to believe.

Jim Wilson takes a cut at explaining how the elite got there:

 “The living that is owed to me I’m never going to get, they’ve
buggered this old world up, up to their necks in debt. They’d give
you a lobotomy for something you ain’t done, they’ll make you an
epitome of everything that’s wrong…

…Do they owe us a living? Of course they do of course they do…”

 -Crass, Do They Owe Us a Living?

The very suggestion that the wealthy somehow owe the rest of the population anything is pretty toxic to some of my more conservative and libertarian friends. For some of them there is an underlying assumption that we live something close to a free market and that most of the wealth in it is legitimately earned by our heroic self made benefactors to society and if you question this you are just jealous. Some defend the wealth and privileges of America’s super elite with an almost reactionary fervor. With sheer amount of wealth, the richest Americans control, the questioning the extent to which their wealth and power is legitimately earned is highly important if not a patriotic duty. Among free market types, there is a bit of a double standard at play. When discussing anything positive it is assumed that our economy is close to a free market. Any negative developments are blamed on the fact that we’re NOT operating as a free market economy.

If we accept the typical libertarian assumptions about the desirability of the free market and its effectiveness at efficiently distributing resources, a very good case can be made that many of this country’s wealthiest households have greatly ripped off the American tax payer and owe them—big time. For the sake of argument, assume that any distortion in the market ultimately interferes with people making voluntary transactions that would enrich themselves. Such action robs the general population. Also, assume that such policies redirect resources from what would otherwise be more efficient uses This would support protectionist measures such as tariffs and trade quotas as well as subsidies and product specific taxes.

With those assumptions in place, the wealthy households whose wealth came from industries subsidized by the state, industries protected from competition by the state, contracted by the state (especially those who have made fortunes from the military and war), had research and development paid for by the state, or business protected by the state through corporate law do in fact owe the society something, probably more than what is paid in taxes. We live in a system of crony capitalism in which the government plays a big role enriching certain parts of the elite, for example, the war profiteers of the military-industrial complex.

How much wealth do crony capitalists owe the tax payer? I’m guessing we would find that by granting rather conservative free market assumptions, we would find that a great deal of money is owed to the tax payer. After all it seems unlikely to me that very many people within the super wealthy got that way by resisting government policies or deals that would help their business. Certainly the leadership of these companies listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_defense_contractors would agree.

Market distortions that have benefited the elite:

• subsidies,
• bailouts,
• state funded R&D,
• protectionist  tariffs & import quotas,
• intellectual property rights,
• corporate limited liability status,
• government contracting,
• state granted monopolies (which privatization seems to often be),
• unfair regulations, and
• licensing.

One last thing to keep in mind even if are able to calculate the money that is lost to the American tax payer through market distortions like the ones I listed above and identify those who benefited from said distortions the feasibility and desirability of extracting this wealth and returning it to the taxpayers would be highly debatable and could certainly have unintended consequences.