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.
Afghanistan is the largest producer and exporter of opium in the World. The trade is run by the Taliban and Al Queda. Osama is it's head. It is very likely that Osama is a user, and may be an addict. I agree with you. We shouldn't be "seeking justice" on these people! The drugs are to blame! The need hugs and warm cocoa! Barney for U.N. Attorney General!! Osama needs our true kindness! We need to find a way to help him!!
Go A.J. Go!!!
I disagree with your disagreement. Even though most people support the prohibition of drugs, we still have things like no-knock raids and asset forfeiture. Those are the only measures that can do anything at all against a black market, and then only around the edges, so long as the demand is there.
Happens.
Nor does pot or mushrooms according to you. But somehow heroin does. You get goofier by the post. Go attend to your hall monitor duties or burger flipping or whatever goofy kids like you should be doing while they are posting inane comments on freerepublic.
That is a lie, again. Please cite where I did that. Damn I hate liars.
You do however defend your use of pot and mushrooms. You are an illegal drug user who has had his mind so warped by his drug usage that he thinks he can condemn people who use drugs that he doesn't approve of while defending his favorites and advocating their legalisation.
You have obviously been using more than you admit to.
I don't know about that--first, jail (aside from the @$$-rapage and assuming you can stay away from the worse influences) can be a fine place to work on disciplining the desires, even if it is not so used by most.
The intended thrust of my statement was not that prohibition implied a disdain for fellow men, but that the statement of Tex's that "I don't care if people harm themselves" used to support legalization implied a lack of concern for one's fellow man. I'd be careful about putting words in DG's mouth about drugs, too. He might disagree with you on that one.
But prison is where the worst influences are concentrated. In any event, the likelyhood of getting raped is more than enough to counter any potential positives.
The intended thrust of my statement was not that prohibition implied a disdain for fellow men, but that the statement of Tex's that "I don't care if people harm themselves" used to support legalization implied a lack of concern for one's fellow man.
Did your section get the little rant about following the line of argument? Tex said that preventing drugs from being in stores was reason enough to ban them. ThomesJefferson replied that the low quality control of the black market made that a negative, and then Tex said he didn't care what the impurities might do. In other words, he was actually saying it in support of prohibition.
I'd be careful about putting words in DG's mouth about drugs, too. He might disagree with you on that one.
I'd bet money that he disagrees with me on legalization (although there's a very small chance I would lose), but I don't think he would disagree about the ultimate source of the problem of people abusing drugs.
The demand side is a problem that is just too great to solve with the resources available, so I feel that we should, to the greatest extent possible, cut off the supply at the source. I know that some drugs will always be available, but the resulting cut in the supply just might let this country get a handle on the demand side as well.
If the US can go after terrorists of the bombing kind, why can't we go after the terrorist of the drug kind?
True, our "penitentaries" do little to make one have a better character. But there are those Caliban types who respond to nothing other than force.
Out of context, yes, I know. The point stands, however. I know Tex's positon as he makes it out, and I'm not as sure as he is that one can argue for prohibition while accepting the grounds that people have the right to harm themselves, but that drugs harm others.
Shoudn't you be studying?
But my point was looking at what he said in context. It may be that his position is untenable, but it is the position he holds and you can't act as if his argument was for legalization. I also think his position doesn't work (obviously, because otherwise I'd agree with him).
You seem to be getting at the point that people don't have the right to harm themselves or, to put the same thing in a different form that gets to the actual point of contention, what the government has legitimate authority to do, that people do have a right to use force to prevent others from harming themselves. The problem here is that force itself is or is the threat of harm. Saying you can do harm to prevent harm is a little odd. You might answer that you'll do less harm than he would do to himself, but that's not your decision to make. Even if it's true, you're still initiating the use of force.
On prisons, the more I think about it, the more astonishingly cruel the whole idea seems. Aside from the conditions in them, there's the fact of taking away large chunks of people's lives. Even if they did work as intended, that would be a high price to pay, but except for a very few cases, they don't. This may be nonsense, but some sort of corporal punishment combined with restitution for the victims may actually be a gentler system of justice, not to mention less expensive. Or maybe not.
Shoudn't you be studying?
At the time you posted that, I was studying. Or burning popcorn.
My roommate burned a lot of incense, and it still didn't get the smell out. I could still smell the burnt popcorn this morning when I came back from the test. But after I burned the popcorn, I studied.
I think that the war of drugs is illegitimate to begin with. That sort of thing is simply not one of the just functions of government.
If the US declares such drugs "a clear and present danger" to the nation, would you support military action in those countrys where the drugs are grown and refined prior to shipment to the US?
Foreigners have the same property rights as Americans, and those rights, whether the government respects them or not, include the right to use your property to make unpopular intoxicants, the right to own unpopular intoxicants, and the right to use unpopular intoxicants.
If the US can go after terrorists of the bombing kind, why can't we go after the terrorist of the drug kind?
Drug dealers aren't terrorists. They're part of the proud tradition of black marketeering.
Interesting take on this. I disagree however, that the drug cartels are not "terrorists".
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.