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.
Bon jour, ma petit ami.
"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."
If I may, sir, it is when the sovereigns of a Constitutional Republic, the people, fail to maintain vigorous involvement in their election process that the Republic is in greatest peril. The rise of a criminal enterpirse democrat party and a gelatinous-spined Republican party have greatly imperiled this Republic because the somnambulent electorate have irresponsible representatives ... neither tyrranical or non-tyrranical, merely shortsightedly self-absorbed. Hopefully, with this war on a religious totalitarian enemy the people will waken and remain awake when the peace comes.
[BTW, I enjoyed your article, and I happen to agree with much of your agenda in writing the article the way you focused it. You used a reference to the Taliban in a generic sense of the people, then responded to my simplistic critique in a specific application (only if the populace is roughly 50% female, does your assertion works non-generically).]
Perhaps the policies of the "Clean Hands" types -- like the Saudis whose Zero Tolerance policy actually rings of a "War on Drugs" -- has somehow confused you.
I myself think EVERY thread on terrorism should include a connection to drugs and drug profits ... if only because that's the way it works in Real Life.
Personally, I don't have a problem with it. But in a state that deems that to be harmful to your neighbors, you violate their right to determine the standards of which they live by.
You continue to try to assert that and each time I prove you wrong, you look for something else. There is no lie here as you hope so desperately for. The comment on prohibition of drugs being tyrannical was made, this is fact.
No where does it state the prohibition on drugs is "tyrannical."
It states that we, too, have adopted policies unfit for a free people, and that we need to return to our Constitutional roots.
In the mission statement of this website, JR assrts correctly that our government has drifted from its constitutional roots, but he stops short of calling that "tyranny." There are degrees, you know.
So yes, you continue to make dishonest assertions. I expect more honesty of my fellow Texans.
Not at all! Nothing forces them to smoke the evil weed or quaff the devil's brew.
I suspect you mean their right to determine the standards I live by, but they have no such right and therefore I cannot violate it.
The theory that there's a such a thing as a "positive right", i.e. a right to order other people around, is false. Such rights amount to little enslavements.
If you'll consult the posting history of the individual to whom you directed this reply you'll see that . . . . . . . . . . uh . . . . . . . . . . . you get my drift. The 13 calories you invested in typing it are lost to you forever. You could have blown your nose twice with that same energy.
I do not however agree with our "war on drugs", not because it isn't a lofty idea, but because it is a lofty idea that has been corrupted. It is unreasonable to assume any war on drugs can be won while refusing to control our borders.
What results is a general tyranny in which an honest person caught driving with over 750. dollars is robbed of that cash along with his car, with no recourse or hope of recovering ones property.
The attempt to expand this tyranny by the "Know Your Customer" policy of the IRS was slapped down, now the DEA is attempting to continue this policy. It is tyranny to make everyone guilty until proven innocent. We think we find ourselves on the horns of a delima that doesn't really exist, we can still protect our rights while confiscating the assets of terrorist that have no US citizenship.
Nope it is the right of association. We form communities, and we as the individuals of those communities have the right to determine the type of community we live in, i.e. the standards of which it lives by. You guys like to call them gated communities, however the founders already created the idea with independent states. To take away the people of the state's ability to set their own standards within the bounds of the constitution is wrong.
Is anyone proposing to make people associate with drug users?
We form communities, and we as the individuals of those communities have the right to determine the type of community we live in, i.e. the standards of which it lives by. You guys like to call them gated communities, however the founders already created the idea with independent states. To take away the people of the state's ability to set their own standards within the bounds of the constitution is wrong.
The only way such restrictions don't violate property and other rights is through the consent of everyone involved. You could get that in a local community, but not in a whole state. The fact that something isn't prohibited by the Constitution doesn't make it a good idea.
LOL
I guess that's not the ultimate subtlety, but it's good enough for me.
Of course you can. You consent by choosing to live there.
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.