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.
As for pot, legalize it all the way.
What did you expect from an Aggie
Hmmm...I wonder why that is.
First off, if they are ABUSED they are being used ILLEGALLY!!!!!!! That is no different than using illicit drugs. Secondly, I don't care about the damage done to the user, look at statistics on damage done to innocents by users of prescription drugs versus illicit HARD drugs.
Easier to get. Legalize hard drugs and they will then become as frequently used.
Your answer to this is that you tell a lie, again.
Jeez you guys will use ANYthing to promote your drugs.
Just another lie by people who not only used drugs themselves, like you, but no answer whatsoever to statement.
Please tell us the means for enforcing your war on people who use unapproved drugs that would be fit for a free society.
Don't you have class or hall monitor or something to do right now?
Oh and my lady (the Pharmicist) is looking over my shoulder as I'm typing this as we are both home sick today and she thinks you're an idiot.
Easy, give states the responsibly to prohibit or legalize drugs. Then violate no rights in enforcing the laws. No knock raids, thermal scans of homes, know your customer policies, ect are unconstitutional and should not be used. However, even if all the prohibition did was to keep hard drugs off of store shelves, that would be a great improvement over complete legalization.
What is the result of using a prescription drug beyond what is prescribed? IT IS ILLEGAL!!!!!!!!!!!! Think McFly THINK!! Therefor if I am prescribed 1 a day and I take 2, BAM I broke the law.
Also if you took all drugs available by prescription and laid them out in front of a crack, cocaine, or heroin user they would all choose their illicit drug over any prescription drug.
Some improvement. Quality control by street thugs is always reliable. Creating business opportunities for lawless thugs is always an improvement. Fostering a business climate where there can be no peaceful resolution to disputes because no rule of law exists is a big improvment.
< /sarcasm>
The last thing I want is a HARD drug that people can feel SAFE in taking. That would SKYROCKET usage.
Again you show your ignorance ... cocaine IS available by prescription. Crack is refined cocaine ... Morphine ... Opium are ALL available by prescription in purer form than you will ever get them on the street. There are drugs for cancer patients that make the effect of heroin seem mild. You have NO IDEA what your taking about.
I'm affraid you are showing yours. I have been around many users of such illegal drugs. They only got me up to pot, cause I saw what the other stuff did to them. And no pharmaceutical company "cooks up" the drugs as they can get with the right amount of money from high end dealers. These were rich kids and they had more names for their "stuff" than wine has. They had it down to a science.
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.