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.
-- What question? I answered your last posts with valid argument/comments, & you posted a picture in response.
The states have the constitutional power to prohibit drugs no matter how bad you want them.
The 14th amendment stops states from depriving "any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
Arbitary, fiat prohibitions are not 'due process'.
This has been explained to you ad nauseum. -- You have never even attempted to refute these facts with a "valid argument".
Put up or shut up, hotshot.
Well, what did you have in mind, then? "The Taliban ARE Afghan society" is pretty clear.
The mere consumption of drugs does not harm your neighbors. You're not making any sense. If that were true, you could arrest every little old lady driving around on enough Morphine to put most of us to sleep for a week.
You can't. So-called illegal drugs are not any worse than prescription drugs.
"The right of ideologues to practice medicine without a license shall not be infringed." Good luck with the D.A.
Yup grandma is now selling her body in front of her small children for that smack money. Grandma just might think her kids are aliens one night and chop them up into little pieces. THOSE DAMN PRESCRIPTION DRUGS!!!!!
The 14th amendment stops states from depriving "any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
Arbitary, fiat prohibitions are not 'due process'. This has been explained to you ad nauseum. -- You have never even attempted to refute these facts with a "valid argument".
Put up or shut up, hotshot.
242 posted by tpaine
-------------------------------
To: tpaine
"You have no right to endanger your neighbors. Sorry". - TA79 -
------------------------- The hotshot makes a 'valid argument', in his dreams.
How pitiful can you get?
Are you mentally ill? If so, then perhaps so. Liberals like to tout their so-called "patient's rights movement" which has gutted our national health service and hamstrung the efforts of municipalities to deal with chronic homelessness among the borderline mentally ill. People with cognitive dysfunctions have no ability to make decisions for themselves in their own best interests anyway.
Do the ideologues support the "right" of people to take a proscribed drug which removes their free will and ability to offer consent? Indubitably, since they believe the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are alienable.
I have the right to chose my own medication. Period.
"The right of ideologues to practice medicine without a license shall not be infringed." Good luck with the D.A.
Good grief! Is there no end to tonites absolute nonsense posting?
Ideologues? - Licenses? - D.A.? -- The bizarro fringe just racked up a notch. Is the moon full?
They had those kinds of problems with alcohol during prohibition. And later, for that matter.
Wouldn't the ideologues claim that the neighbors consented to be endangered by drug addicts because otherwise they'd have moved some place else?
The 14th amendment stops states from depriving "any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
Arbitary, fiat prohibitions are not 'due process'. This has been explained to you ad nauseum. -- You have never even attempted to refute these facts with a "valid argument".
Put up or shut up, hotshot.
242 posted by tpaine
-------------------------------
To: tpaine
"You have no right to endanger your neighbors. Sorry". - TA79
------------------------------------------
"prove that you can smoke crack as much as you want and that you pose absolutely no threat to your neighbors." - 253 TA79 -
------------------------- The hotshot makes yet another weirdo 'valid argument', in his dreams.
How pitiful can you get?
-- We see exactly how pitiful, --- he posted a 'prove you can beat your wife without hurting her' question. ------- Incredibly lame.
"prove that you can smoke crack as much as you want and that you pose absolutely no threat to your neighbors".
And the indecipherable reply?
"Wouldn't the ideologues claim that the neighbors consented to be endangered by drug addicts because otherwise they'd have moved some place else?"
256 posted by Cultural Jihad
-------------------------------------------
Folks, gibberish don't get much better than this. Enjoy.
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.