Government Against the People

Words of Truth ^ | Aaron Armitage

[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.

[A.J.Armitage]

There will be few civilians (except perhaps young children) in Afganistan shortly. They will either side with the taliban, or with the northern alliance. The choice will be theirs to make. Excellent post, thanks.

You may be right about that. We'll see.

Although I doubt the Taliban could bring themselves to arm their women, even in a dire emergency.

[Equality 7-2521]

If it's not too much trouble, I would like to be added to your flag list as well. I'm right up in Rockford, BTW.

[A.J.Armitage]

I know, propaganda is often presented that way. As though it is an accepted idea. Well, it's not.

"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."

Quit lying.

If you have a substantive disagreement, present it.

[Texaggie79]

Read the article again. It would suffice just fine without a single reference to drugs. Hence gathering a much broader supportive audience. It served no purpose but squeeze in a little Libertarian propaganda.

[Texaggie79]

It is quite simple really. No rights are violated in prohibiting drugs. Period.

[unixfox]

This WAS a good post until you littered it with blank bumps.

YOU ONLY NEED TO HIT POST ONCE !!

[Storm Orphan]

Again, your characterization of the reference as propaganda and "as if it is
accepted" is demonstrably untrue.

You can do better than that.

[A.J.Armitage]

Northern Illinois University, where I am, was almost in Rockford. The committee deciding the location wanted a good sized river, so the folks in DeKalb, led by the inventer of barbed wire, dammed the Kishwaukee upstream of the potential site, and released it just before the commitee came to have a look. The rest is history. I heard about that while taking the tour of campus during orientation.

[Askel5]

I know, propaganda is often presented that way.

Says the dude who weasled what he could in the way of a drug needle out of a wholly substantive haystack to paint this as a "pro-drug" thread.

[Texaggie79]

prop·a·gan·da (prp-gnd)
n.

1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.
2. Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda.

And if the author did not think it was an accepted idea, he would ahve provided a much more in depth argument to support the statement.

[A.J.Armitage]

No rights are violated in prohibiting drugs.

Property rights(which do exist even if the thing owned is unpopular) are violated. A great many other rights are violated by the means used to enforce it.

[Texaggie79]

Says the dude who weasled what he could in the way of a drug needle out of a wholly substantive haystack to paint this as a "pro-drug" thread.

Hey if you take the drug dig out I think it is quite a good article. But me simply allowing it to pass would be like allowing a comment on abortion being a right to choose to go by without criticism.

[Texaggie79]

You may not own property when the ownership of such property violates the rights of others.

[A.J.Armitage]

I did hit post once. Per bump. Each bump has different people in it.

[ScreamingFist]

"It served no purpose but squeeze in a little Libertarian propaganda" AJA has already stated his views to you. Try, just once, to have a small amount of class. If you don't like the young man's post, say so AND leave.

[Texaggie79]

A great many other rights are violated by the means used to enforce it.

That I partially agree with. But that does nothing to legitimize the legalization of hard drugs.

[Askel5]

It's okay if he keeps bumping me. (I appreciate it, actually.)

Given the perpetual multiple posts, total dreck and mislabelled threads that clog latest articles anymore as a rule, I no longer have the luxury of (or interest in) scanning them by hand for posters or items of interest.

[Texaggie79]

say so AND leave.

I did, but it would be quite rude of me to ignore posts addressed to me.

[A.J.Armitage]

The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.

What do you think you're doing? That's the whole point of Free Republic! We promote doctrines, causes, and information to further our views and interests. It's called free speech.

And if the author did not think it was an accepted idea, he would ahve provided a much more in depth argument to support the statement.

The author is right here and he's telling you that isn't the case.

[Storm Orphan]

You continue to present information untruthfully and make flase assertions.

This does not speak well of you.

There are times when it is okay to admit that you are wrong. No one will think you less of a man.