OPEN- MINDED?
The “new” Las Vegas Sun is plagued with political contradictions
BY DOUG FRENCH

The day we’ve all dreamed of has finally arrived: The Las Vegas Sun is now a daily paper, delivered as an eight-page insert inside its competitor the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Productivity in the valley will likely plummet, as readers are made late to work each day, spending extra time enjoying the Sun’s “independent voice” as the paper’s Oct. 2 editorial called themselves. 

The Sun’s self-righteous editorialists pronounced that they, “unlike some ideologically driven media outlets intent on tearing people down, [will] focus on constructive criticism to make Las Vegas an even better place to live.” They then proceeded to spell out their confused ideology. 

Not quite a third of the way through the maiden, get-to-know-us editorial, the Sun starts a paragraph with: “Civic issues are complex and don’t have just one simple answer that can be culled from an ideology.” Oh boy. This has to remind anyone who has questioned an elected official on why he or she raised taxes, or some other bonehead move. The answer is always, “these things are complicated, you just don’t understand.”

At least we know where we stand; the people at the Sun are smart and enlightened. Those of us ideological types who believe in private property rights, the right to bear arms to protect our property, and the freedom of association can expect to be talked down to by the Sun editorial page each morning. Just the thing I need to start my day. 

After a paragraph about their “independent” stance on education — more money, more discipline, longer school hours and more parental involvement (can that be legislated?) — the Sun editorialists insist that they are committed, “first and foremost” to liberty. I’m not making this up. They actually wrote: “Government shouldn’t be interfering in the most intimate decisions we make, including a woman’s right to choose.” And, later, “government must ensure that fundamental rights are preserved, and foster free enterprise, by refraining from unnecessary interference.” But, next they launch into a discussion about how “it is essential for government to be there when people are hurt and need help.” 

Unfortunately, the Sun editorialists, or anyone else for that matter, cannot have their ideological cake and eat it too. You are either for free enterprise and liberty or you are not; you can’t have it both ways. Saying that you stand for liberty means that you believe people should be able to live their lives unfettered by governments, neighbors or anyone else who seeks to do harm or take property. As long as you don’t aggress against someone else, you should enjoy liberty. 

But, the Sun advocates in one paragraph that money should be taken from citizens to fund schools and in another paragraph they advocate taking money to fund anyone in need. That is not believing in liberty. 

The Sun gang would likely respond that my view is “too simple.” But, it is the only line of reasoning that can be supported logically.

They write that they “certainly don’t have blind faith that government can solve all of society’s problems.” Yet, they advocate that money and property be taken from citizens by force and be given blindly to governments on all levels to waste. 

They rightly point out the ineptness of the federal government’s response to the Katrina disaster, but then opine: “we also need a strong government to ensure, among other things, that we have safe drinking water, clean air to breathe and a safety net guaranteeing that those who are infirm aren’t discarded in this society.” If the federal government couldn’t manage to get water and help to the gulf after the hurricane in a timely manner, and in fact hindered private aid efforts, how can the Sun expect it to take care of us from cradle to grave? 

The Sun editorial made a point of mentioning privacy rights. There is no such thing. A woman has property rights and those property rights begin with her own body. We all own or own bodies. Thus, if you believe in private property rights you believe in a woman controlling her own property. It doesn’t have anything to do with privacy. Ensuring a person’s privacy would aggress against other people’s rights. 

The new Sun’s introductory editorial concluded by saying their newspaper opinion section “truly believes in being open-minded …” They mention featuring syndicated columnists offering views spanning the ideological spectrum, like, liberal E.J. Dionne and conservative David Brooks. Dionne writes for the Washington Post, Brooks for The New York Times. That’s not open-minded. LW

Doug French, associate editor of Liberty Watch: The Magazine, is an executive vice president of a Nevada bank. He is the 2005 recipient of the Murray N. Rothbard Award from the Center for Libertarian Studies.