Posted on 09/24/2001 12:49:15 PM PDT by A.J.Armitage
The American Constitutionalist
By: Aaron Armitage
Government Against the People
As the United States prepares retaliation aimed at Osama bin Laden's network of terrorists and the Taliban regime in Afghanistan there is a temptation, already succumbed to rhetorically by some people, to treat the Afghan people or all Middle Easterners as the enemy in a total war. George Bush, in his address to Congress, has rejected this, and he was right to do so. Acting on that impulse is exactly what bin Laden wants, because there's no other way his dream of uniting Islam against the West can happen. Beyond that, such a total war is simply misdirected. The Taliban are, in many ways, an alien force within Afghan society. The Taliban gained power in large part because of the sponsorship of Pakistan, although Pakistan is currently siding with the United States (no doubt under compulsion). Many of the supporters of the Taliban, including bin Laden himself, are from foreign countries, especially Saudi Arabia, and these are some of their best troops in the war against the Northern Alliance. Were they not disarmed, starving, and otherwise oppressed many Afghans would resist. Some, especially women, already are, but not in the open.
In a more important sense, though, all tyranny is a force alien to the organic society it rules over, because tyranny is government against the people (or some of the people), as opposed to government for the people. A non-tyrannical government exists to protect the persons and property of everyone inside its jurisdiction by punishing domestic criminals and defeating foreign attackers, and as such is an ally and supporter of the people. To the extent that a government exists for any other purpose, especially a purpose which aims to force human nature to fit an artificial ideal, it must treat the people as an enemy to be subdued.
In order to make Afghans fit their concept of what a Muslim should be, the Taliban has outlawed music, kite flying, shaving, pictures, smoking, television, access to the Internet, leather jackets, chess, and even brown paper bags. The restrictions on women are, as I'm sure most people know, even harsher. Women aren't allowed out of their houses unless they're wearing a burqa, which includes cloth in front of their eyes that's difficult to see through. Incidents of female pedestrians being hit by cars have greatly increased, even though the vast majority of the people are too poor to have cars. Women are prohibited from working, and aren't allowed to receive an education. Some particularly brave women have set up secret girl's schools. The Taliban are an extreme example, in competition with North Korea for the "honor" of being the most oppressive dictatorship on Earth. Even these governments, though, maintain police and military, and thus provide at least some sort of protection for the rights of the people even while devoting most of their efforts to violating those rights.
There lies the ambiguity of the real world. The masters of the wretches of the world protect them, if only the way a farmer would protect the livestock he intends to sell to a meat processing plant. Closer to home, even governments founded to be for the people have their original principles compromised and admix tyranny with otherwise wholesome government.
America is not exempt. The prohibition of drugs, for example, cannot be enforced by means fit for a free people, and rather than ending it the government resorts to means unfit for a free people. That the majority of the people currently support the war on drugs does nothing to make the means of enforcing it, which still don't work, any less like the measures of an occupying army. Our government has declined from its original position under the Constitution, but our old liberty can be restored or even improved upon, if enough people have the will to do so.
The United States is nevertheless one of the freest countries in the world, and we should keep it that way by not allowing opportunistic politicians to rob us of our patrimony using the conflict we're now in as an excuse. The parts of our government that are most hostile to the people are the ones furthest away from them, the agencies nominally answering to the president. The most tyrannical regimes, the communists of North Korea and the Taliban of Afghanistan, got that way by being as separate from and hostile to the people as they could. We should keep that in mind during upcoming events. It is neither in our interests nor is it moral to gratuitously attack Afghan civilians.
Interesting point. I was sitting here wondering to myself if the simple abscence of a law against an act necessarily means promotion or acceptance of such act. Does it?
And it's particularly poignant in this thread because the post centered around the oppressive laws promulgated and enforced by the Taliban. Now, it seems that they would make exactly such an argument that you appear to be making: that is, that if an act is not outlawed, then it is promoted. Hence, they create and enforce all types of laws that we would find oppressive in this country.
But don't we have to take into account the enforcement of any such law that we pass? Say, we pass a law against adultery when there are young children in the families. We might all agree that this is ruinous and really should be outlawed---it obviously shouldn't be promoted! But then, how is such a law enforced? Just imagine the shredding of our liberties and privacy in trying to capture proof of adultery. So, perhaps such a law is not advisable.
Perhaps laws against drug use are not advisable, either.
That works for a town, but you don't really think it works for a state, do you?
It may not promote it outright, but pretty much every thing that is legal, is acceptable in our society. Legalizing drugs would make it quite acceptable, perhaps not right away, but eventually.
You must remember, I feel the same way you do with adultery, and even homosexual sex in states that are against it, but to enforce such laws would be quite taxing on our liberties, because it only consists of an activity between 2 humans. However drugs require a foreign object to the equation. There must be production, selling and buying of the product. This is what I mainly think needs to be curbed, more so than just use.
Why didn't the founders then isolate counties instead of states? Now each state can isolate the decisions down to a county level, which I think is a good idea, but the states are the final arbiters.
Counties doesn't cut it either. It has to be a unit in which everyone agrees. As a practical matter, that has to be very small.
But let's look at this logically, even then, what county, in it's right mind would legalize hard drugs? I think one reason it should be kept at the state level is because if one county were to legalize it, it woudl bring down all the surrounding counties.
The only reason we would need communities smaller than counties is if our societies standards were grossly diverse. That is not the case. The case is that most of America agrees that hard drugs should be illegal.
The infringements are so varied and many I don't know where to begin. But to list a few: flying planes over neighborhoods to read the heat signatures of the houses; making surprise no-knock raids that inevitably end up in a tragic death; liberal wire-tap laws; cash restriction and lack of banking privacy; asset forfeiture laws that steal your assets before any proof of wrongdoing; and huge cash expenditures to a war that we would win if only we put in enough money. All this to enforce these drug laws. There must be a better way to curb drug use, I just don't know what it is.
I didn't say "create" I said Isolate.
And you're still wrong. They were isolated to start out with, with only each colony's separate tie to England linking them. The Revolution, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution all brought the states closer together, without coming close to the kind of centralization we see now.
But let's look at this logically, even then, what county, in it's right mind would legalize hard drugs?
Counties have no right to ban them in the first place.
I think one reason it should be kept at the state level is because if one county were to legalize it, it woudl bring down all the surrounding counties.
Does that justify the use of force against someone buying and using property you disapprove of?
I'll give you a hint: no.
The only reason we would need communities smaller than counties is if our societies standards were grossly diverse. That is not the case. The case is that most of America agrees that hard drugs should be illegal.
The majority of Americans means exactly nothing if I personally do not agree to such restrictions on my property. Those restriction would then be violations of my rights. Period. It doesn't matter if every other person on the planet agrees. It would still violate my individual rights. Are you begining to see the point? Majoritarianism is a code word for tyranny. The majority of whatever you want to name has no right to infringe my rights unless I give it to them. That's why the only politial units that could make such laws have to be small. Not because there are radically different majorities in all of them, but because majorities don't matter. It has to be every single person limited by such a law agreeing, otherwise the "law" is itself a crime and an excuse for crime.
Everything that, without permission, limits or destroys an owner's use of his property or harms his person is a crime, and the only legitimate purpose of the government is to punish crimes, not commit them.
Also, more work needs to be done on the reasons for addiction--it's not all a matter of personal weakness.
My understanding is that during the Opium Wars, Britain also targetted Japan as market for its goods, but without much success. Why were the Chinese so much more susceptible to addiction than the Japanese?
Monomaniacal fixation!
It all starts with a strong military. Have you finally decided to serve since turning 18?
Oh yeah. The difference between us and the Taliban is negligable. It's more rhetorical than anything else. Yeah right.
I did not draw the comparison you suggest, Huck. You know better.
Tex, -- you've been beat to shreds on your fake defense of the constitution, while you advocate that 'communities', counties, and states can violate it; --- well, -- will your embarassment ever end?
Must have been nine months ago you were first shown your errors of judgement & fact on this matter. AJ just did it again. Give it up.
It seems that Congress doesn't want to give the President their sanction for the job he's going to have to do. They need to pass a declaration of war for the Constitutional proprieties to be observed. Their unwillingness to do so could be our undoing.
How do we elect officials then, without violating anyone's rights? That is a stupid question, and so is the assertion that a state prohibiting drugs out of a majority decision is violating people rights. They can move, if they don't like it, but at some point, there must be a majority decision because either an area legalizes drugs or prohibits them, there is no grey area. So how do you choose between the two? If you eliminate EITHER of the choices from the decision, you are THEN violating rights.
Sorry, you of all people, with your insane view on the constitution cannot touch my argument. You guys were beaten the first time anyone mentions the founders supporting sodomy laws. The rest is just for fun.
You have no argument behind the constitution, so you must revert to anarchical sources such as Ayn Rand.
You have been defeated since day one. Your blind stubbornness simply won't allow you to see it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.