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.
Really my boy, you should go back to a good school. Texas A&M failed you, -- or you it.
219 posted by tpaine
------------------------------------------
To: tpaine
"harmful to their users."
Sho you right! We all know that not a single soul out there has been harmed who has not touched drugs......... - 220 -
Let's start over. - I posted #219.
You replied with #220, which you imagine is some sort of retort to my 'harmful' statement.
It is not. -- It is a senseless, inane comment, that has no context in any relationship to my words.
Pitiful
Where is the line drawn and who gets to decide? Or would you argue that proven insane psychopaths, who have committed no actual crime, but are proven to be a threat, should be allowed to roam the streets?
Sure. Hard imagine a substance having such a 'force' though. Sounds magical.
What about a substance that forced 50% of the users? What about 10%?
While your 'what if' game is amusing, do you have a point?
What if it just made the user go beat up other people? What if it just made the user temporarily insane? What if the user were just made to be hostile?
Many criminals claim "the devil [booze, weed, whatever] made me do it". -- Adults know different.
Where is the line drawn and who gets to decide? Or would you argue that proven insane psychopaths, who have committed no actual crime, but are proven to be a threat, should be allowed to roam the streets?
Nope, -- I'm in favor of the devils island concept for violent people of all sorts. Once proven guilty of violence by a jury of peers, put them with their criminal peers, and let nature take its course.
As to your 'preventive detention' scheme for 'insane psychos, roaming the streets', I'd vote for you being the one "who gets to decide".
Takes one to know one.
You should join up tex. A yes man like you would make a fine supply company clerk.
Your nation needs you.
LOL, yes I did dedicated a whole 30 seconds out of my life. What an effort!!! LOL
P.S. only REAL men want drugs legalized!! Right? Ideals outweigh human life by a million times over eh.
I know it! Our guys are ever there right now shootin up some of that GREAT afghan smack.
LMAO, what's it like seeing life through that "Purple Haze"?
Tpaine is your better. Join up and keep your attitude. I can't wait to hear how many days on KP and TP you got.
As the United States prepares retaliationWrong.This, terrorism and terroristic acts are cancer on society and it threatens any hope we have for peace in the future *if* it (terrorism) isn't snuffed out now.
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.BUT we're not and we haven't ... (WHEN was this article written again)?
Acting on that impulse is exactly what bin Laden wants,Wrong.Osma bin Laden wants us dead. EVERYTHING ELSE is secondary ...
The Taliban are, in many ways, an alien force within Afghan society.Wrong.The Taliban ARE Afghan society. (The Soviets weren't - the Pakaistanis aren't and neither are we.)
Many of the supporters of the Taliban ... are from foreign countries ... and these are some of their best troops in the war against the Northern Alliance.Wrong.We have kicked their butts WITH THE DIRECT INVOLVEMENT of the Northern Alliance (WHEN was this article written again?)
A non-tyrannical government exists to protect the persons and property of everyone inside its jurisdiction by punishing domestic criminals and defeating foreign attackers,Wrong.A so-called "non-tyrannical government" exists to serve only it's *own* selfish self-interests (see ANY dictatorship for an example)
And *that* was only the first *two* paragraphs ...
They hit us. We hit them back, and rightly so. This is called retaliation. We were preparing it at the time I wrote the piece. Simple, really.
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.
BUT we're not and we haven't ... (WHEN was this article written again)?
It was written not long before 9/24/01. Looks, in other words, like Bush took my sage advice. (Yes, I know there's almost no chance he read it.)
Acting on that impulse is exactly what bin Laden wants,
Wrong.
Osma bin Laden wants us dead. EVERYTHING ELSE is secondary ...
I'd say right now he mainly wants to get out alive. Not likely to happen, of course.
The Taliban are, in many ways, an alien force within Afghan society.
Wrong.
The Taliban ARE Afghan society. (The Soviets weren't - the Pakaistanis aren't and neither are we.)
That's why the Afghans shaved off their beards, threw off their burqas, and flew kites while listening to music when the Taliban got kicked out. Because the Taliban "ARE" Afghan society. That's why the Taliban hardly exist anymore.
You do know that you look really dumb for saying that, don't you?
Many of the supporters of the Taliban ... are from foreign countries ... and these are some of their best troops in the war against the Northern Alliance.
Wrong.
We have kicked their butts WITH THE DIRECT INVOLVEMENT of the Northern Alliance (WHEN was this article written again?)
But I thought you just said the Taliban WERE Afghan society. Now you're telling me the Northern Alliance (who, last time I checked, were Afghans; actually, last time I checked, not only were they Afghans, they were running Afghanistan) helped us beat the Taliban.
I don't see what any of this has to do with my point. You do recall, don't you, that little thing with the prison? It was the only time the Taliban put up a fight worth mentioning, and all of them were from outside Afghanistan. Heck, one was an American. You do know who John Walker is, right?
A non-tyrannical government exists to protect the persons and property of everyone inside its jurisdiction by punishing domestic criminals and defeating foreign attackers,
Wrong.
A so-called "non-tyrannical government" exists to serve only it's *own* selfish self-interests (see ANY dictatorship for an example)
I don't know about you, but I wouldn't cite dictatorships as non-tyrannical governments.
And *that* was only the first *two* paragraphs ...
And I never knew how good those paragraphs were until someone tried to refute them.
I still can't believe you said the Taliban is Afghan society. I feel sorry for pointing out the obvious absurdity of that. Dementia like that really ought to be put on display so people can walk by and marvel at it.
so-called "non-tyrannical governmentsThat changes the whole meaning ...
The rational amongst know whereof I speak. And that's whom I'm addressing ...
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.