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.
That is not my theory. My theory is that every citizen should be able to control their own actions, and hard drugs takes that ability away.
What Libertarians want to ignore is highest and best use principles of property, and the chaos and devaluation of property that could occur if there were no zoning laws. I work in the real estate appraisal industry.
This does not violate your property rights, because you never acquired that right to your property when you bought it.
for dixie,sw
Just repeat the word "majority" some more. Anything's okay if the majority wants it.
Is there anything you think the majority has no right to do?
I would be happy to move out of that state, not just because of the laws, but because the residents are obviously a bit uptight.
Having the option of fleeing your home is not the same as having your rights respected.
Have I given the government permission to determine what the highest and best use of my property is?
This does not violate your property rights, because you never acquired that right to your property when you bought it.
You never acquire the right to own your property when you buy it? Interesting. But wrong.
That the government claimed to have the "right" to treat all land as if it were theirs before I bought mine in no way means I have to believe their lies.
Article. XIV.
[Proposed 1866; Ratified Under Duress 1868]
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
---------------------------------
The possession of private property, used in a non criminal manner, is an unalienable right, enumerated by the 14th amendment.. Plain as the 2nd, to me..
Yup, usurp the constitution. That they can never do. I know they currently do it, but I'm talking about theory here. Tell me AJ, how do we elect state officials, we go with the .......... vote. Go ahead, you can say it.
Depends on the area in which you live. If you are in a rural or suburban area, you most likely never had that right, because it was never for sale. You chose to purchase the property without it.
There's nothing in the Constitution to prevent a state from outlawing mullets.
The state still has no right to do it. Get that through your benighted skull. To say that something can be done is hardly the end of the matter. Once you have seen that something doesn't violate the Constitution, the question is, is it just? Is there any basis in right for government to do it?
Your stunted political awareness seems almost perfectly oblivious to exactly this consideration, which is why you are really not capable of comprehending our arguments on even the most rudimentary level. You haven't shown any evidence that you are even aware of an alternative to the absolutist conception of the state. It is only to an absolutist who is ignorant that other political positions exist who can say this:
Tell me AJ, how do we elect state officials, we go with the .......... vote. Go ahead, you can say it.
If we were in a monarchy you'd be saying that whatever the king wants is fine, and it's fine because the king wants it. That the majority selects officeholders in no way means the majority selects natural rights. At least try to understand something outside your primative political paradigm: there are principles of justice beyond the power of the majority to alter, because they are beyond the power of any government to alter. Not only are they not subordinate to the government, a just government is subordinate to them.
BS
No the individuals of that state do if it is the decision of the majority.
That the majority selects officeholders in no way means the majority selects natural rights.
What natural right is it of yours to smoke crack in a neighborhood that does not wish to tolerate it?
Article. XIV.
[Proposed 1866; Ratified Under Duress 1868]
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
---------------------------------
The possession of private property, used in a non criminal manner, is an unalienable right, enumerated by the 14th amendment.. Plain as the 2nd, to me..
Can you support even the principle behind this amendment, aggie? Can you even understand WHY it was needed after a bloody civil war?
Sorry bub, read up on it if you don't believe me. I deal with the stuff every day. When you purchase a property, you do not outright buy it. You purchase rights to that property, be it homestead, business, or what have you. Rights are inseparable from the PROPERTY but not from each other.
See the 14th.
AJ, you've outlined exactly why NO one will ever get thru a communitarian mindset, to explain the principle behind our constitution. Congrats.
This threads getting to long to reload. See ya all elsewhere.
No one individual has the right to stop other people from having mullets. No two individuals have the right to stop other people from having mullets. No three individuals have the right to stop other people from having mullets. And so on.
The majority has no rights an individual doesn't have.
What natural right is it of yours to smoke crack in a neighborhood that does not wish to tolerate it?
If I own the crack and I own the land I'm smoking it on, or have permission to be there, I have every right in the world.
No, you obviously don't. I doubt that you even could deal with it.
You can't even figure out what the stuff I'm talking about is. I'm not talking about the law as currently on the books. I'm talking about natural law. I fully believe your statement that the two conflict. Guess what? Natural law isn't going to change.
Therefore the enacted law should.
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.