Government Against the People

Words of Truth ^ | Aaron Armitage

[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.

[Texaggie79]

I agree with you for the most part. I support the legalization of pot. I want treatment for users not imprisonment. I want severe punishment for sellers, ect.

[willyone]

The only problem with your reasoning,if it can be called that,is anything can be declared illegal by an all powerful govt. Yes even your property. Being a Gestapo bootlicker will not save you when your turn comes to be outside the norms decreed by our masters. Speaking of propaganda you need to watch "Reefer Madness". That piece of trash started most of the craziness over what had been to that time considered just a minor behavioral problem. And no I do not do drugs nor am I a libertarian. So wrack your feeble Nazi brain for some other dumb comment.

[Texaggie79]

The only problem with your reasoning,if it can be called that,is anything can be declared illegal by an all powerful govt.

So rights can contradict? You have the right to own ANYTHING, even if by owning it you violate others' rights? MMMMMKAY

BTW The govt. is always bound by the Constitution.

[Antoninus]

I didn't know doing drugs involves raping children. Thanks for clarifying that.

No, but it does involve destroying people's lives (not only those actually doing the drugs either) which is bad enough, don't you think?

[Askel5]

Seriously ... it's like seeing an Escher drawing properly for the first time.

Drugs are a case of SUPPLY driving demand. Ask any of the defeated during dry season.

Folks don't kill or rob or maim to obtain what they don't know they can GET. It's even THAT plain and simple.

But the real key is getting the stuff IN the country. Truly ... even if when I was in high school it was said pot was the biggest cash crop in Oklahoma ... we don't meet consumption HERE in the United States of ANY illegal drug.

What does that tell you?

How could we fail at that ... especially given our cooperative relationship with our primary opponents (in sophistication, commitment, etc. etc.) since 1989?

Doesn't add up.

We're Looking at them like Policemen ... These Guys are Cops with a Mission Similar to Ours

[Texaggie79]

I completely agree.

[tpaine]

To endanger your neighbors against their will. It is as simple as that. Potential for harm is a violation of other's rights when high enough.

=======================================

Round and round you go. Where you stop ----

How does a man getting 'high' in private 'endanger' his neighbor? What potential for harm, what clear & present danger is there?

Try to come up with some reason to stop him, prior to any violent act that takes into account the rule of constitutional law, please.

[Texaggie79]

Is it a violent act to aim a gun at someone's head and not firing? Danger is potential for harm. Once you have acknowledged that a certain amount of danger merits gov. intervention, you must then leave it to the states. If you don't acknowledge that, then you would support the personal ownership of nuclear weapons.

[Texaggie79]

not fire....

[A.J.Armitage]

To endanger your neighbors against their will. It is as simple as that. Potential for harm is a violation of other's rights when high enough.

I think our little authoritarian friend needs to hear about fences some more.

Tex: come on. By your principles, we'd have to outlaw alcohol, which causes a great deal more potential for harm than many of the drugs currently banned.

[tpaine]

Round and round you go. Where you stop ----

How does a man getting 'high' in private 'endanger' his neighbor? What potential for harm, what clear & present danger is there?

Try to come up with some reason to stop him, prior to any violent act that takes into account the rule of constitutional law, please.

"Is it a violent act to aim a gun at someone's head and not firing? Danger is potential for harm. Once you have acknowledged that a certain amount of danger merits gov. intervention, you must then leave it to the states. If you don't acknowledge that, then you would support the personal ownership of nuclear weapons."

Answer the guestion, please,

[another1]

Dear One - few care to hear or even debate reason any more. Though I have actually posted a fair amount recently, a search will not reveal much, as deleted threads are not included. Imagine that.

Sigh...

Freepmail me please, if you get the chance.

[A.J.Armitage]

Why, we're no better than Afganistan after all!

You're a twit!

Do you deny that we have less freedom than the Founders intended?

Having less freedom than we should is not the same as being the Taliban. No one thinks that, and except for people like you who have to use straw men, no one says it.

Don't you people ever get tired of this stupid charade? I understand that addictions seem like the most important things in our lives while we're addicted. Heck, they're even important enough for some of us to try to use the current crisis to score political points. But to those of us who are not addicted, it just sounds ... well, lame.

If I were writing about drugs I actually use, it would be things like vodka, Jager, ect. I've made more mention of the drinking age in past columns than I have drugs.

There is no 'right to get loaded' and there never was. Sorry.

But there is a right to "private property", including intoxicants.

[Marianne]

BTTT

[Texaggie79]

By your principles, we'd have to outlaw alcohol, which causes a great deal more potential for harm than many of the drugs currently banned

As you already know (but probably won't admit) states can constitutionally prohibit that if they see it to be too harmful. I personally don't, and neither does the majority of my state.

[Texaggie79]

He is presenting a threat to his neighbors. Plain and simple. Be it a threat of physical harm, of financial harm, it is HARM none the less.

[A.J.Armitage]

As you already know (but probably won't admit) states can constitutionally prohibit that if they see it to be too harmful.

As I've said many times, not every law that happens to no violate the Constitution is a good one. "Well, at least it doesn't violate the Constitution," is about the weakest justification for a law I've ever seen. Sure, they can, but that hardly means they should.

Thanks for admitting that by your principles, there's nothing to stop alcohol prohibition.

[A.J.Armitage]

Where does the financial harm come from?

[tpaine]

To endanger your neighbors against their will. It is as simple as that. Potential for harm is a violation of other's rights when high enough. -TA79-

=======================================

Round and round you go. Where you stop ----

How does a man getting 'high' in private 'endanger' his neighbor? What potential for harm, what clear & present danger is there?

Try to come up with some reason to stop him, prior to any violent act, that takes into account the rule of constitutional law, please.

He is presenting a threat to his neighbors. Plain and simple. Be it a threat of physical harm, of financial harm, it is HARM none the less.

Your plain & certainly simple declaration is not a reasoned answer, it is merely restating your original opinion. WHAT is your imagined threat? Can you tell us?