katie mare's column 2010

8/6/2019 Katie Mare's Column 2010

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/katie-mares-column-2010 1/44

Katie Mare’s Column

January-April 2011

“I advocate a platform of freedom for all,

both in terms of negative and positive

freedom. I also advocate for things like cleanliving – but only in ways consistent with the

platform. You see, either we have freedom

for all, or we are all threatened by tyranny.”

Us vs Them, and Friendly Debate

One of my missions in life is to build a

community of libertarians on social issues,

people who will stand up for each others'

freedom, despite not agreeing with each

other's views and lifestyles. This community

will include both traditionalists and people

who live alternative lifestyles. It has been

said that everyone has an 'us' and a 'them' -

for me, my 'us' would be the whole of this

community (including people who live

alternative lifestyles), and my 'them' would

be anybody who is anti-libertarian (even if



they live a similar lifestyle to me). And it is

important to me that this greater 'us' win thecultural war against 'them'.

Within the 'us', obviously we can have

friendly debate. It is like the way every

mature nation should behave, that all its

citizens fight for the welfare of their country,but in everyday life within the said country

people are still divided into different lifestyle-

based sub-cultural groups and have debates

with one another. This does not decrease the

solidarity of the people, it merely increases

diversity. One good example is my ongoing

debate with people who live alternative

lifestyles. I generally don't agree with the

supposed merits of those lifestyles, and I am

also very keen to ensure that (within the

framework of the greater 'us' of

libertarianism) I will be able to keep my

community of traditionalist culture alive and

well (and hopefully pass it onto the next

generation), but that doesn't make those

who live alternative lifestyles the 'them'.



A Community of Libertarians

I believe me, my friends and generallypeople in my cultural group will mature into a

community of libertarians in the coming

years. A community that will stand together

for the freedom of all, and to support each

others freedom in all social issues. We may

have different lifestyles and differentpersonal beliefs, but we believe freedom for

all protects us all.

We will stand together on issues such as

freedom from discrimination for private

lifestyle matters, freedom in relationships

and how to define marriage, and freedom of

religion in a broad sense. We will stand by

our own practices and rules, and refuse to

assimilate into the anti-freedom mainstream

culture.

In this community there will be those who

adhere to traditionalist lifestyles like me (I

would say that I am more traditional than

70% of GenY at least), and those who adhere

to 'alternative' lifestyles that I personally



won't touch (and won't allow my children to

touch in the future) but fully support thefreedom for people to follow if they so

choose. To build my political movement for

freedom I need all of you, and in return I will

do my best to bring my fellow traditionalists

out of the folly of believing in excessive

government power on social matters, andtherefore help create a majority agreement

on society leaving everybody alone to do

their own thing.

The Way of the Social Libertarian

I am a proud libertarian on social issues, and

have been since 2003. Why? I believe the

concentration of power and its use against

individuals will lead to discrimination (and

hence social disadvantage) and loss of

peace. It was the Bush years that taught me

this lesson, but now that we are out of there I

believe we should not forget it.

I am indeed a traditionalist personally on

most cultural and lifestyle issues. Last time I

checked, I loved country music and ballads



and hated most hip-hop and heavy rock. Last

time I checked, I prayed every day. Last timeI checked, I was pro-life (but anti-

criminalisation of abortion), pro decency,

abstinent on alcohol, anti sexualisation in the

media, pro-family, anti divorce, and firmly so,

and was promoting my agenda everywhere

to the upset of modern hippies. In short,everything that the right wing supports

except racism and homophobia.

However, I detest the right wing's method of

using government power to regulate

everything. I do believe there should be laws

preventing unwanted exposure to offensive

things in public (like people being naked in

public), and protection of couples and

children against unilateral divorce, but

there's where it should end. Anti-abortion

legislation has not achieved its desired result

(just look at Georgia), and ancient

institutions like marriage have been

destroyed by political squabbles and the

enactment of 'no fault divorce'. Our tax

money has also unwillingly gone to pay for



the Iraq war, church 'faith based' initiatives

that promote homophobia, and the like.

Therefore, I believe in a combination of

advocating and voting for pro-freedom

socially policies on the political level, and

promoting traditional values and morals (less

the bigotry) in the social and cultural setting.Anyone with me here?

The Real Fix for Reactionarism

It seems that nowadays there are more and

more reactionary people around. You really

can't disagree that extreme ideologies like

racism are on the rise. Having done a lot of

study in why this is the case, I have come to

the conclusion that the way the world has

changed recently has been too much for

many people.

And indeed it has. First of all, 1980s style

Thatcherist economics are stupid and a

complete return to Keynesian economic

policies are in order. The economic miracle of

the 1950s West was based on Keynesianism -



when you are onto a good thing, you don't let

it go easily. Sadly, the recession in the 1970sbecame an excuse to try out extremist, anti-

human type policies. People have suffered

too much because of the rise of the

economic right, and I believe it is the

responsibility of the major centre-left parties

of the world to take us back onto the righttrack. A return to a pre-80s model of

economics with no ifs, ands or buts is not

radical, it is pro-human.

Secondly, I believe the right to live a

traditionalist moral life has been eroded.

Hence a lot of traditionalists have decided to

wage war on all things progressive - which I

believe is misguided, but sadly we must face

the fact that this is happening. You see, us

traditionalists really don't appreciate the in-

your-face sexualisation of society, the putting

down of the clean living ideal, the blaring of

vulgar hip-hop music everywhere you go,

and pressure applied against families that

wish to be stable. Responding to us by calling

us conservative (even I have been called that



a few times!) and upping the action is not

really going to help - we will not convert tothe hippie agenda unfortunately. Obviously

the multi-million dollar media business has

its role here, and they should be our main

target, but what we can do is to reaffirm the

right of everyone not to be offended by

oversexualisation and the lack of respect insociety.

I am a social libertarian and I believe in

freedom. Hence I support extending anti-

discrimination to polyamorists (even if I don't

agree with their lifestyle), and the

decriminalisation of abortion by legislation

(Roe vs Wade needs to be overturned

because it is improper in and of itself, but

whilst I am pro-life I do believe in the state

not interfering in matters so personal) for

example. But to help people like me make

the case for these amendments in the wider

world to make your life easier, you have to

give us, the traditionalist majority, some

respect too. Shoving it in our face doesn't

help.



After All, I'm an Individualist - for a GoodReason

Supporters of marriage equality have been

quoted that they believe civil unions which

nevertheless grants equal rights to couples

are 'separate but equal' and hence unequal. I

really don't buy that line - I have explicitlystated civil unions with equal rights, with no

exception to family and parental rights, are

equal indeed (which means that schemes in

the UK and several US and Australian states

count, but those in many European countries

don't).

But I am a strong supporter for marriage

equality, right?

Right, because I believe that any group of

people should have the freedom to define

their culture and mainstream society has no

business in stopping them. Marriage is now

the standard idea of relationship in the gay

and lesbian community just as it is in the

straight community - therefore, unless you



think it is OK to discriminate against gay and

lesbian people, there is now no excuse not tosupport marriage equality. And I don't believe

the opinions of the conservative anti-equality

camp even need to be heard in this case - I

am an individualist, and I believe rights of an

individual come before the importance of a

consensus. It's a position I take consistentlyacross many issues - like a strong support for

state rights and localities being able to set

their own laws as long as it does not violate

human rights statues, and strong support for

multiculturalism.

Some people have said that I am collectivist -

but that's because they look at my economic

standpoints and decide that's me. Actually, I

have to say that my economic standpoint

derives from my ideas about how to run the

economy, but it is my social issues

standpoint that really defines my values. And

on that, I can confidently tell you that I am a

traditionalist-leaning libertarian.

A Solution for Unemployment



As a result of the global financial crisis, many

people around the world have beenchronically unemployed and are soon going

to run out of unemployment benefits. I

believe society should make sure that

everyone can live without too much difficulty

- this is the mark of civilization as I believe it.

Here's a solution I propose: anybody who is

unemployed or severely underemployed can

apply for government loans of up to $300 per

week. This has to be paid back once they get

employment, with the income threshold for

repayment being $350 per week. This loan

should last for about 26 weeks - thus is for

the short term unemployed only, and the

government would quickly recover the

spending.

To address the problem of chronic

unemployment, government should offer all

chronically unemployed people a full time job

at $7.50/hr. This would not really cost that

much, $7.50 per hour being pretty low and

although many of these people may not be



highly skilled, the government can employ

more of them, thus potentially cutting coststhrough employing less of the more

expensive workers. This will also stimulate

the private sector in the long run as

government will be setting free more coveted

talent for the private sector.

What do you think?

I would never support a burqa ban

Ever since France's parliament passed a ban

on the burqa, much of the Western World's

racist residents seem to be pushing on their

own governments to do the same.

Let me say this: I would never, ever support

a burqa ban, for any reason. This is anti-

freedom, specifically anti freedom of religion,

and very statist of them indeed. And you

know I oppose anything that is anti-freedom,

except when to protect the freedom of those

who wish to live a happy family-based life.

And this is not even a 'liberal' stance - it is



just plain old conservative principle arguing

against marching towards fascism.

I am NOT changing into one of 'them'

Recently a website made by a fan suggested

that I may be changing into one of those

narrow-minded conservatives that I have

always said I don't particularly admire.

Let me say this: I am never going to become

one of them. Never.

I am more open to engaging with self-

identified 'social conservatives' however

because I believe we may have more in

common than I previously thought. Hence I

have been adopting more of their language

recently.

Separation of Church and State is Rule No 1

In my previous article, Love Religion But

Defend Secularism, I outlined why I am an

avid supporter of secularism. And I am not

alone in being religious but supporting

secularism - take France for example, a



nation of religious Catholics who strongly

defend their secular state.

Separation of church and state exists for a

reason - otherwise each church will compete

for a portion of the state and use it to

disadvantage those who don't agree with it.

Religion will then resemble politics at itsworst - power struggles, majority oppressing

the minority. The wall must be maintained at

all cost - for the sake of religion.

I suggest that those of us who seek to

maintain this separation follow this rule:

refuse to deal with arguments that stem from

purely religious dogma without suitable

reasoning. This is sufficient to provide

enough space for arguments against abortion

for example (everyone can see a fetus on

ultrasound not just members of a particular

religion) but still exclude ridiculous things like

teaching somebody's version of creationism

in schools.

This does not mean that we are not engaging



religious people. I am a religious person

myself. The idea is that we are open to allreasonable people who wish to talk, just not

people who will fight for their dogma by force

rather than persuasion.

The Real Liberal Media - Not Playing by

Conservative Rules They say that the media out there is liberal.

Let me correct this - Hollywood, not the

media, is liberal. I'll say that whilst Hollywood

is liberal, Hollywood is not the real world

either. In the real world, a lot of the media

out there is conservative, or at least play by

conservative rules. Just in the country I am

living in I am seeing a lot of media spin

against the centre-left PM we currently have.

The same could be said of Obama in the US.

It has actually become very dire: every

liberal act is now being judged by

conservative standards in the media. The

real liberal media needs to stand up if we are

to have any chance to progress and not be

tied by chains to conservative rules. We need



to make our own rules in terms of judging

people and things.

Give Domestic Partnerships a Chance

Domestic Partnerships are simply this: a

partnership that is 100% designed for family.

Nothing else, not political arguments, not

religious dogma, and not relating to age oldtraditions about wives being property.

Recently it has been hijacked and twisted

into a form of same-sex marriage lite. That's

very unfair - it is NOT marriage lite, it is an

institution similar to but also different from

marriage. Another argument for equal

marriage rights, I guess.

But back to the point. Domestic partnerships

are stable family building blocks, and should

be honored as equal to other stable family

building blocks like marriage. In a time when

we really need to encourage stable family

building blocks, all such arrangements

should be encouraged - including domestic

partnerships. Many states around the world



have started to grant full couple rights for

domestic partnerships - hopefully more willfollow.

The Wrongs We Must Distance Ourselves

From

My last article was about the past wrongs of

certain liberal-related movements, i.e. thosewhich advocated loose sex morals, disregard

for the family and the like. And I have, for the

record, spoken out against those things

probably even more than against, for

example, the religious right. Why do I do

that, and should you be doing that too?

I understand how indebted we are to the

1960s-70s generation which brought about a

new wave of liberalism. However, their

mistakes were plentiful, and to this day it is

the negative things they ushered in that

have been blamed upon the whole liberal

movement, giving religious fundamentalists

their credibility. It is not doing us any good.

Therefore, we must denounce those past



wrongs and distance ourselves from them

completely. We must do so even moredecisively than the right, for it is we who are

going to be harmed the most if these ideas

continue to haunt the world.

Wake Up, It's not the 1960s Anymore

In the 1960s and 70s there were weirdmovements like 'free love', hippies, radical

feminists rejecting the family and hating

men, and the like. And we all know what the

results were. The AIDS crisis of the 80s killed

many from a generation, and had the most

severe impact on vulnerable minorities like

the LGBT and certain ethnic communities.

The hippie communes have largely

disappeared without making much impact.

Radical feminism has been rejected by most

of our generation, and seen as actually

conservative in many circles too. The family

still won out as the best institution to live

your life in.

I thought everybody had accepted that whilst

it is good to have freedom and equality, the



white picket fence lifestyle is the best

without peer. I thought that we had agreedthat whilst we continue to rally against

discrimination, injustice, war and poverty, we

aim to make the family lifestyle available to

everyone.

Which is why I am surprised that recently Ihave encountered a few people who think

that this is still the 1960s and that people

like me are still considered ancient. No, we

have found out the best way to live. And it's

you, not us, that are ancient in 2010.

The Limitation of Freedom: There Are Only

Two Choices

The recent Rand Paul scandal made me

think.

Society must accept either one of two moral

choices: complete freedom to everyone, at a

great cost, or freedom on all things except

excluding freedom of personal judgments in

market transactions, which comes at a much

lower cost.



Let me explain. Everything is based on thepremise of freedom being only fair if there is

freedom for all (or freedom for none, but I

don't agree with this).

Complete freedom means freedom to

discriminate at will, for example. This is whatRand Paul asked for. However, government

has a responsibility to protect all its citizens -

it is just not moral to protect some but not

others. Therefore, this must include

protecting the freedom of all citizens to live

as they believe. To do this, it must both allow

and counteract private sector discrimination,

by using budgetary means. This means that

lots will be spent in the public sector to this

goal, and taxation will rise quite significantly,

meaning that whilst freedom of conscience

lives, economic freedom is virtually gone.

The other alternative is what we currently

have - we accept limiting the freedom of

people to use irrelevant cultural judgments

whilst they are performing otherwise purely



economic functions because this is a way to

still allow freedom of conscience ineverybody's personal lives without the

government having to fork out a lot more.

The maximises freedom, both social and

economic, whilst minimising the need for a

huge government.

Which one makes more sense? I guess most

people can tell me.

My Vision for an Ongoing Shared Culture

Culture makes us strong. Culture made the

civil rights movement strong in the 60s, and

made the religious right strong in the 90s. If

the Inclusive Family Values Movement is to

be strong and strong for a long time, it is

required that we have a strong shared

culture.

The shared culture should be inclusive to all

lifestyles compatible with family values,

inclusiveness and equality. Therefore, it

should emphasize family friendly content,

equal rights for all minorities and a equal



chance at a good life for everybody, but put

behind us other issues of divisiveness.

It will transcend both politics and

entertainment. As with any culture, creativity

and entertainment is a big part, but it will

also necessarily be political as all successful

movement cultures have been. It will start asa small subculture but will blossom into a

force to be reckoned with. It will start with us

building the basic building blocks now, and

years down the generation it will be the

background culture our children grow up in,

as they grow up to be defenders of the cause

through the culture.

Everyone reading this now, I am inviting you

to participate in building this culture. You can

participate by putting your ideas out there,

putting your talent to use in spreading the

message (for example by music or art), or

just simply connecting with other believers

out there and start building your own big

family of faith in inclusive family values.



Freedom Above All Else!

The number one thing we should be aimingfor and defending in a democracy is freedom.

No freedom, no democracy, fascism etc. can

rise up easily.

Forget about electing an efficient

government, if the choice is betweenfreedom and lack thereof. This includes not

just economic freedom but also the freedom

to believe and live as you believe. We must

stand up for that freedom, at any cost.

There are many lifestyles out there that I

don't agree with. But then, when it comes to

governance, freedom comes first, and I stand

by others' rights to live as they believe

without difficulty.

Judicial Activism is a Myth

Let me say this out loud: judicial activism is a

MYTH. In every nation with a bill of rights,

judges are there to make sure that every

piece of legislation is consistent with the

nation's commitments to those rights,



regardless of when it is applied to the

majority or minorities.

That some laws will and have to be struck

down are because they are inconsistent with

the constitution. Great statesmen would

never argue with the court in such cases.

They simply amend the legislation to makesure that it is consistent with the

constitution.

Some conservatives think that judges are

there to make things more libertine without

the populace's consent. But what they are

doing in every case is only to expand a right

available already to the majority to minorities

who have been excluded - rather than

creating a new right altogether. This is

making things more inclusive, not necessarily

more libertine. (Consider that, for example, if

nobody had a right to unilateral divorce as it

probably should be in an ideal world, no

court can change that. And there is nothing

preventing parliament from adopting such a

law either.)



The Idea of Prioritised Moderate ProgressIt has been argued that societies can only

take that much change before its essential

values are lost, and its fabric torn apart.

Against this idea is the one that change just

cannot come quickly enough for some

groups, especially long suffering minorities.

If there is only so much change that society

can take, say, every year, then logic would

suggest that we direct that change to make

things better for those who need it the most,

if we truly believe in the idea of social justice.

Those who live alternative lifestyles purely

because they think that's a better way - well

they have their freedom to - but to change

society to better suit them would have to be

a lesser priority. In our world we are

continuously trying to find better ways of

doing things and accommodating more

'lifestyle choices' as long as their is a way of

accommodating them that is not harmful.

But this is nowhere as an important a

process as social justice itself.



Sadly, this is not what society always does.For example, the 'changes' of the last few

decades have changed society a lot to suit

those who live 'alternative lifestyles' - e.g.

the availability of no-fault divorce, the

relaxing of attitudes towards public

discussion of sex, but not changed societyenough to bring social justice quickly enough

to those who need it - racism is still alive and

well, and equal marriage has still not been

achieved (save for a small proportion of the

world). In fact, the former changes may have

encouraged resistance for the latter ones,

since they have put too much unnecessary

tension on society's fabric making it unable

to accept any more change in the meanwhile

(seen in, for example, the rise of the religious

right).

There may be a way to let people who live

their life by serial marriages or those who

want to marry three partners at once feel

more included in society - indeed, if there is

such a way that will not tear the fabric of



society apart, we probably should just do it,

as we should respect others' choices.However, this is nowhere as important as

providing equal marriage rights to gay and

lesbian couples, eliminating racism, and

making sure transgender people have an

equal opportunity at life, for example, as

discriminating against the former is merelydiscriminating against lifestyle choices, but

discriminating against the latter is

discriminating against people for who they

are and against the principles of social

justice.

Spite the Religious Right! But also win the

Moral Race and prove them Wrong!

Admit it - spiting a group that you don't like

can be fun. However, using it on people who

are otherwise fine but you just don't like is

plain mean. I believe we should preserve that

activity for groups that really deserve it -

groups that deliberately put misery into

others' lives. The so-called religious right, for

example.



Have you done your bit to spite the religious

right today? I have. Indeed, my very lifestyleis somehow set up to spite the religious right.

First, I am a believer and builder of interfaith

coming together. To have the world wake up

to the fact that all faiths are compatible and

their one isn't the one true way - trust me,they fear this above all else, above gay

marriages and the lack of school prayer.

Secondly, I am trying to turn their worldview

and predictions of the world upside down, for

example by advocating a marriage boycott,

effectively rendering a decrease in the

popularity of marriage (note I mean the word

not the institution of two people being

together for life, they are only interested in

the word anyway) in those places without

gay marriage and the preservation of

marriage only in those places with gay

marriage, the exact opposite outcome of

what they have suggested. My persistent

pointing out that the welfare state is the best

preventer of abortion won't make their



worldview more secure either.

However, just to spite them and shoot holes

in their worldview isn't enough. To really win,

we have to do that whilst also winning the

race on morality. We have to be able to set a

moral example that is better than theirs. For

example, my ideal is that we will havehealthy, stable families and a lack of

inappropriate sex, drugs, alcohol and

abortions in my community. Winning the race

on morality, more than anything, is going to

put the nail in the coffin for the religious right

movement.

How To 'embed traditional objectives within

progressive frameworks'

An often stated goals in my speeches,

writings and websites is to 'embed traditional

objectives within progressive frameworks'.

But how do we actually achieve this?

Progressive frameworks are frameworks

which are derived from cutting edge

understandings of how we can improve our



relationships with each other and foster

equality in our communities. However, withinthose frameworks, we can still specify which

objectives are to be achieved. Progressive

frameworks lend themselves to the

possibility of achieving many different great

objectives that older, medieval frameworks

simply can't cope with. However, it is stillimportant that time-tried objectives like

stable family structures and public decency

are high on the priority list too. I would wish

to emphasize this point, just as much as I

would like to see the introduction of

progressive frameworks in our society.

Support the Family that Supports Liberty

United we stand, divided we fall. As in all

things, we need to be united in supporting

each others' decisions to live out our lifestyle

beliefs freely, or otherwise we will all lose

that freedom.

Keep in mind that there are a lot of forces out

there that seek to take away that freedom.

Wingnuts who think that every community in



the world should be made in the image of

their own, for example. Religiousfundamentalists who believe they have the

right to shove their beliefs down our throats.

However, when we, the diverse people and

communities who share one common thing -

believe in freedom - stand together, they

have no way denting our freedom. We willnot have to fear them.

Therefore, in regards to those who choose to

live apart from clean living, whilst I

personally will not consider for myself their

lifestyle choices and would do my best to

prevent my children from straying towards

their cultural turf, I will still stand shoulder to

shoulder with them in the battle to ensure

the lifestyle freedom of all of us, and hope

that they, even though they are often wary

of all clean living people, will accept my offer

to stand together to fight the real threat to

both of us.

The Problem with Populism

Put it simply - populism hurts. Ouch!



We thought it was ridiculous enough thatback in the 70s and 80s some self styled

experts suggested it was okay to smack

children against then-new advice from child

psychologists. Now former bullies are saying

that anti-bullying measures are no good for a

country's competitiveness. What a load of crap!

That somebody can find an argument against

something doesn't mean that argument is

valid. For example, I have yet to see a valid

argument against same sex marriage. I have

never, ever seen one indeed, even though

the anti-equality people have made so much

noise already.

However, such populist challenges, which are

designed to attract those minds who haven't

seen the whole picture yet, can succeed by

preventing such minds from actually seeing

the whole picture ever, thus impeding the

spread of important ideas. For example,

when I was young I was taught that anyone



who did not subscribe to traditional marriage

was not of family values. Obviously this isvery false. But it took me more than a

decade to find and accept the truth. Many

more would not even bother to travel that

difficult intellectual path.

A Real Step ForwardFor those of us who wish for equality and

acceptance for all in this world, change can't

come fast enough. However, we do have to

struggle with a lot of forces trying to contain

access to institutions, celebration and the

like from being more inclusive. And it often

feels like we are fighting on their turf, since

what they defend is almost always the long-

established, difficult to change status quo.

Maybe a better approach is to start by

establishing new institutions ourselves. They

can have the same spirit and purpose as the

traditional ones, but have inclusion,

tolerance and respect built into every one of

them. A society built on such institutions

would therefore have inclusion, tolerance



and respect built right into its foundations.

Doing this may sound like a lot more

complicated than just to convert a few

existing institutions. But then, that's the only

way that works maybe, especially if you take

the whole world into context. Take a look a

marriage equality (may fav subject). Whenwill it be a reality across the majority of the

world (not just the Western world)? 2100?

Even that looks optimistic. (Obviously the

equal legal marriage certificate movement is

still important and my number one cause,

since the only way to guarantee true equality

is to have equal treatment of all couples

under one single system).

One thing that may stop people from

defining their lives by new institutions rather

than the old ones may be the factor of family

approval. However, when each generation so

desperately needs approval from the one

above it, old bigotry and biases get passed

down generations too. Therefore, we must be

brave. In fact, if we are brave enough, we



may just educate the generations above

about the values we cherish. Just look atthose involved in the marriage boycott at the

moment for example.

Competition Isn't Necessarily Good

In this market driven world we are often told

that competition is always good. Which issomething that I find ridiculous.

Consider this. Worker A would be able to do a

certain job for $10 an hour. Now worker B

comes along and offers $5 an hour. Worker A,

though demanding a wage that is not

unreasonable at all, will still be priced out of

the market and left jobless. Now imagine a

whole nation of people surviving on $5 an

hour jobs, and all the social implications.

Would you like to live in that nation?

Now consider this. Worker B continues to

work on their job for $5 an hour, but worker

C comes along and offers to do the same job

for the same price, and is willing to be

humiliated and yelled upon every day for no



good reason and will return this with only

praise to their boss. Guess who gets the jobthen? As you can see, it is not only a matter

of economics, it is also a matter of equality in

human dignity.

A Theme for a New Movement of Progress

The progress that each generation can offeris often based on the circumstances they

started out in. For example, the 60s

generation in the West started out being

conscripted for war, and their reaction

against it was an anti-war peace movement

whose legacy still stays with us today.

Our generation needs to find such a common

theme, and produce a better world based on

this. Today a few people from the

generations above us seem to run the world

just because they have amassed a fortune by

one way or another during times of economic

change. The news is published and

popularised because of them. Anyone who

wants to run for political office need their

blessings. Any new-comer to the Hollywood



circle needs their approval to be successful

(as the mass-advertising needed to launchanybody up there requires a huge amount of

money). The overall effect is that they

control the culture.

The culture is thus, at least the majority of it,

not created by our generation - even if theyemploy people from our generation to get

the message out, it is their message, not our

message, that is heard.

There are lots of voices out there from our

generations that speak about the real issues.

However, they are not heard. That is because

the system is shutting us out. If the Beatles

lived today, they would not be heard either.

To even get a mention in the media, you

have to have connections to the industry

already in place. If you're not born in the

right place - there goes your chance to have

a star in the walk of fame for life.

The effect of all this is that we, as a

generation, have little power to create



change. The way we work and the way we

play is discriminated against in society. Themedia constantly promotes negative

stereotypes of us. And we can't do anything

about it.

The bottom line: We need to change the way

culture is controlled and produced.

Promises vs Results: Some Pro-Life Talk

It is well known that the biggest abortion

decline in recent US history came about

during the Clinton administration, with his

policy that abortion should be safe, legal and

rare. (The rate did continue to decline in the

Bush years, but I just can't see that it was

anything that Bush did - the Clinton policies

were simply continuing to work).

Now to the 'Big-C Conservatives' who

proclaimed themselves to be pro-life. They,

however, also want to make sure that poor

people did not have the means to raise a

child properly in today's world. Their strategy

is simple: just outlaw abortion. They don't



seem to need to take care of the backyard

abortion problem either. Just look at Poland:abortion officially outlawed, but a high rate of

backyard abortion persist. Looks like these

'conservatives' are playing out of sight, out

of mind rather than facing the reality.

I am not somebody who believes in abortion-on-demand. However, I favour approaches

that work. I can't endorse policy that comes

from pure doctrine and doesn't stand up to

common logic. Nor do I believe that we

should take away people's right to do

according to their conscience in controversial

matters that don't have a clearly agreed on

answer - for example, what to do in the case

that the fetus is severely deformed, or what

to do in the case that the mother's life is not

threatened but her physical health (not

emotional wellbeing) is irreversibly damaged

by the pregnancy?

For the USA, I have nothing against repealing

Roe vs Wade - but nor am I particularly

excited by this prospect. For most other



countries, abortion-on-demand probably

comes from loopholes in laws that cater tothe mother's wellbeing being abused - this

could be addressed by simple amendments.

However, beyond all this, we need to do what

is effective - a living income for all, adequate

childcare support, and all that. And this is

what 'Big-C Conservatism' cannot deliver.

The New Principles of 'Small Government'

Traditionally, small government has been

achieved with cost cuts, cutting programs to

provide welfare to the needy, and being

against basic health insurance for all. Yet

these measures can be harmful to many

people and hence the fabric of society itself.

I suggest a few other ways that small

government can be brought about without

using the above means:

-employing people who are already receiving

welfare as much as possible. This will

decrease the need for welfare naturally,

without needing to resort to providing below-

livable incomes for those on welfare. This is



also good for private enterprise as it frees up

more talent for the private sector to use.Since employing those on welfare is also

usually cheaper, this can result in natural

cost savings for the government.

-taking care of everybody's life so that every

citizen is on a living income. From there, we

can free up the market as much as possiblewithout needing to worry about tearing the

fabric of society apart. Cutting tariffs to zero,

ending all agricultural subsidies, and allowing

the natural fading out of unsustainable

industries in favour of imports should all be

relatively easy by then.

-encourage multiculturalism, with the

government a protector of peace and

freedom amongst all members of society

rather than an agent in culture itself. The

government then will be by default powerless

to control culture.

A New Approach to Government Employment

The government should try to employ every

single unemployed person in the nation. This

is what I believe.



This is not as hard to do as it seems. In mostadvanced countries the government already

has a welfare system to look after the

unemployed. The government can pay the

welfare benefits as a wage and ask for work

for them in return. This is important because

while it is natural for private employers tolook for what they see most fit to help them

profit, it is the government's role in society to

correct market failure, including to help those

that private enterprise do not find useful.

This will also free up more talent for the

private sector to choose from, which is also

good for free enterprise.

Conservatism Failed Because It Is False

Advertising

Conservatism says it is for freedom. They

love to say how conservatism is based on

libertarianism. Well, that seems quite like my

approach - all the things I support are geared

towards providing more freedom for people.

Except that we actually are not fellow



travelers politically. Why? Because

conservatism, at least in its early 21stcentury incarnation, does not stand for

freedom - not anymore. Not when it stand

against freedom of religion, as in the denial

of churches and religious organisations to

marry same-sex couples in accordance with

their doctrine.

I am told that I do share a few causes with

the conservatives, time and time again.

However, I would not trust that they would

do anything for me in that area either. Why?

Just look at their track record. Conservatism

fought drugs, and drugs won. Conservatism

fought divorce, and divorce won.

Conservatism fought abortion, and abortion

won. Conservatism fought crime, and crime

won. Conservatism fought casual sex, and

casual sex won.

Need I say more? Conservatism has never

delivered a bit of what they promised. Except

for one thing - religious dogma. Why?

Because for them, all the above are nice to



have, but religious dogma is their goal.

Conservatism in the 21st century is aboutone thing - the triumph of dogmatic, literalist

interpretation of religion.

No wonder conservatism, which promised so

many wonderful things indeed, still failed, as

seen by its support rate in the younggeneration today.

katie mare's column 2010

Documents