Another victim in the War on Personal Freedom

Michael Phelps was caught kissing a bong. I say 'kissing a bong' because that's all the picture of him smoking actually shows, and even then it's questionable if it's actually him. Doesn't really make much difference, as he did admit it was him and has issued his apology. So far, he's lost a sponsorship and won a three-month suspension. The local sheriff is under pressure to bring charges as if Phelps were just any other man.
So, we can add Michael Phelps, fourteen time Olympic Gold Medal winner, to the list of millions of political victims of the United States Federal Government's War on Personal Freedom. What's interesting is that we cannot add the names William J Clinton, George W Bush, or Barack H Obama to that list. Yes, those are the names of the three previous presidents of the United States. Which means that the three of the men tasked by the Constitution, and the people, to enforce the laws of the United States have broken those laws. Not only were these men not punished, but eventually were rewarded by reaching the highest level of elected office in this country. President Bush didn't admit to his actions, though the evidence is enough to state he did it, but both Presidents Clinton and Obama admitted to it before their election. Not only do we have these three men, but scores of current and previous members of Congress, and at least 40% of the American public have admitted to smoking the ganja at least once.
Despite his actions, President Obama has made no indication that he intends to address the problem that is America's War on Personal Freedom. In case it's not clear, I will not use the euphemistic War on Drugs to address America's unconstitutional drug policies. In this country, even though it is not currently in effect, the American government can pull anyone over the age of 18, press them into uniform, and send them to fight, kill, or die in the name of the government. Yet, we cannot be trusted with the substances we can put within our own bodies? Or to act responsibly? Are we adults, or are we children?
There are several arguments against the War on Personal Freedom. To address my chosen moniker, I will start with the philosophical. Obviously I believe that this country is supposed to be about freedom. It says so in our founding documents, it's a common theme in our political debates, and in most of our patriotic songs we hear it mentioned. Yet, our government seems to feel that freedom should not include the recreational use of particular substances. Currently, the number of deaths caused by illegal drug overdose is less than 14,000 per year. While it is possible to argue that this number could be raised if currently illegal drugs were made legal, the real question becomes how many could this be, and what is the cost of avoid them?
Take a look a this report of the number of deaths from drug overdose in Belgium, where most drugs illegal here in America are freely available. It tops out just under 140 deaths in 1994. In 1994, there were just over ten million people in Belgium, so total deaths are 0.00014% of the population per year. If we apply that to America's current population of just over three hundred million people, we get around 42,000. This may seem like a large number of people, but it's still barely more than one thousandth of one percent of the people in this country, and would account for 1.7% of the 2,431,351 deaths that would occur if these drugs were legal (this result comes from this report and adding the 28,000 difference between current and possible overdose deaths). So, that's roughly 28,000 people possibly saved by the War on Personal Freedom, but what are the costs?
For now, I am going to stick with the philosophical, but I will be going into the economic, diplomatic, and other costs later. The philosophical costs are pretty straight forward. Consider the story of Kathryn Johnston. This 92 year old Atlanta woman was killed in an illegal drug raid in 2006. Or the story of Tarika Wilson and her toddler son. Tarika was killed in a questionable drug raid and her young son was wounded. Stories like these abound throughout the United States, people killed, maimed, and tortured because our police and our courts will do anything for a drug bust. Half a million people rotting in jail for non-violent drug offenses. Time again to return to Franklin's quote about security and freedom. How much of either did Kathryn and Tarika have? What about Tarika's young son? It should be important to point out, if you didn't read the article in question, that Katrhyn Johnston broke no laws, not even drug laws. This is the philosophical cost of America's War on Personal Freedom, the death of innocents and the loss of all of our freedom.
Now for my Socratic argument. Think on these things and see to what truths they lead you. If we are conducting a 'War on Drugs', against whom do we fight? It can't be the drugs, they are not people and can have no individual motivation. While it's called a war, it is conducted by the policing agencies of the federal, state, and local governments, so the enemy cannot be a foreign nation. Who are the victims in this war? What about collateral damage?
To the legal argument against this war. When the Constitution was written, it was written as a list of clearly enumerated rights provided to the government. This was the concept that was supposed to be written into the tenth amendment to protect future generations against government expansion. While successive Supreme Courts have ignored this particular prevision to the benefit of themselves and the Federal Government, it still hold legal weight. I have written previously that America is supposed to be about self-governance, and that the legal structure of the United States is supposed to support this. Read carefully over the Constitution. You will find no mention of Congress having the right to ban any product out right. Indeed, consider the Nineteenth Amendment. It bans the production, distribution, and sale of alcohol. If Congress had the power to ban any product it chose, why the need for such an amendment? Because Congress does not have this power. And any power not provided to the Congress is held by the States and the People there-in.
As the legal argument is so straight-froward, I'll move on the economic. For an up to the minute cost, feel free to see this link. At time of this writing, the combined monies in the War on Personal Freedom total over five billion. Yeah, we're barely over a month into 2009 and already our governments have spent five billion dollars fighting this war. If spending continues, the cost in 2009 will be more than sixty billion. This doesn't include the costs of pushing a multi-billion dollar industry into the hands of criminals and generally out of our economy.
This is the important part of the economic argument. Black markets exist outside the white markets that make up an economy. How much is estimated for the value of this trade? Some estimates have been as high as half a trillion dollars world wide, though around $300 billion is more accurate. American's alone spent nearly fifty billion dollars (additional statistics sited here on that site) on drugs in 2000. So, not only is the United States going to spend $60 billion dollars on its true illegal war, but it's going to allow the possible tax income on an additional $60 billion go because of it.
What else could this large sum provide in the real economy? Wealth begets wealth. Any business reinvests in itself, allowing for a more productive work-force and economy. The secondary costs of this war cannot be estimated. There is no way to tell what could be earned if the profits of the drug trade were in the legal economy and could be reinvested and set to work like the profits of all other products.
Then there are the human costs. I've discussed some of them previously, but now I'm going to talk about the secondary costs. Consider this: In Los Angeles alone there were 587 gang related homicides in 2001. One third of these victims are generally non-gang related, or innocent bystanders. These would be the 'collateral damage' of America's War on Personal Freedom. Gangs are supported by the money of illicit drug trafficking (and other crime). If drugs were made legal, the funds which support these gangs would dry up, and the gangs themselves would become much less of a threat. Without the money provided by the drug trade, they would lose the ability to purchase weapons, bribe officials, and engage in other crimes. While I am not trying to argue that gangs would go away entirely, they would loose a great deal of their power and with it, the threat would be reduced.
Our illegal drug war doesn't just cost Americans. It effects our relations with the world, our neighbors, and our relations with them. Mexico is currently the hardest hit by this. Drug traffickers use the country as a staging point to smuggle their product into the US. These drug cartels are in open war against the Mexican government, and all actions taken by that government do not steam the tide. These cartels engage in kidnapping, extortion, and other crimes to support their main business; the distribution of drugs. Mexico isn't the only casualty. Operation Just Cause in 1989 against Panama to remove Manuel Noriega was part of our War on Personal Freedom, as Noriega had financed his actions through the trade of cocaine. Columbia has only in the past decade managed to fight down the drug cartels into a manageable threat, and the cost of thousands of lives. Even today, our brave solders fight the Taliban and others in Afghanistan who are financed by the production and selling of poppies for heron production.
After an exhausting search, the only answer I can find for the number of deaths by gang-related violence in the US as whole in 2007 was 15,000. That's sixty billion dollars spent here, increased violence in other countries, complications in the War on Terror and other diplomatic problems, lost tax revenue, and lost freedom for all Americans. And for what? So that people can die by others' violent actions rather than their own folly.
I do not advocate the recreational use of any drugs, legal or illegal. At no point should any of my arguments be construed such as to suggest that people should use these substances for any reason. However, in the light of the costs and the possible benefits, especially the cost in American freedom and safety from inappropriate government action, how can anyone continue to call the War on Personal Freedom anything but what it is?
To our so-called leaders: We are adults. Treat us as such and stop this costly and illegal war.

Michael Phelps was caught kissing a bong. I say 'kissing a bong' because that's all the picture of him smoking actually shows, and even then it's questionable if it's actually him. Doesn't really make much difference, as he did admit it was him and has issued his apology. So far, he's lost a sponsorship and won a three-month suspension. The local sheriff is under pressure to bring charges as if Phelps were just any other man.
So, we can add Michael Phelps, fourteen time Olympic Gold Medal winner, to the list of some half-million political victims of the United States Federal Government's War on Personal Freedom. What's interesting is that we cannot add the names William J Clinton, George W Bush, or Barack H Obama to that list. Yes, those are the names of the three previous presidents of the United States. Which means that the three of the men tasked by the Constitution, and the people, to enforce the laws of the United States have broken those laws. Not only were these men not punished, but eventually were rewarded by reaching the highest level of elected office in this country. President Bush didn't admit to his actions, though the evidence is enough to state he did it, but both Presidents Clinton and Obama admitted to it before their election. Not only do we have these three men, but scores of current and previous members of Congress, and at least 40% of the American public have admitted to smoking the ganja at least once.
Despite his actions, President Obama has made no indication that he intends to address the problem that is America's War on Personal Freedom. In case it's not clear, I will not use the euphemistic War on Drugs to address America's unconstitutional drug policies. In this country, even though it is not currently in effect, the American government can pull anyone over the age of 18, press them into uniform, and send them to fight, kill, or die in the name of the government. Yet, we cannot be trusted with the substances we can put within our own bodies? Or to act responsibly? Are we adults, or are we children?
There are several arguments against the War on Personal Freedom. To address my chosen moniker, I will start with the philosophical. Obviously I believe that this country is supposed to be about freedom. It says so in our founding documents, it's a common theme in our political debates, and in most of our patriotic songs we hear it mentioned. Yet, our government seems to feel that freedom should not include the recreational use of particular substances. Currently, the number of deaths caused by illegal drug overdose is less than 14,000 per year (Using . While it is possible to argue that this number could be raised if currently illegal drugs were made legal, the real question becomes how many could this be, and what is the cost of avoid them?
Take a look a this report of the number of deaths from drug overdose in Belgium, where most drugs illegal here in America are freely available. It tops out just under 140 deaths in 1994. In 1994, there were just over ten million people in Belgium, so total deaths are 0.00014% of the population per year. If we apply that to America's current population of just over three hundred million people, we get around 42,000. This may seem like a large number of people, but it's still barely more than one ten-thousandth of one percent of the people in this country, and would account for 1.7% of the 2,431,351 deaths that would occur if these drugs were legal (this result comes from this report and adding the 28,000 difference between current and possible overdose deaths). So, that's roughly 28,000 people possibly saved by the War on Personal Freedom, but what are the costs?
For now, I am going to stick with the philosophical, but I will be going into the economic, diplomatic, and other costs later. The philosophical costs are pretty straight forward. Consider the story of Kathryn Johnston. This 92 year old Atlanta woman was killed in an illegal drug raid in 2006. Or the story of Tarika Wilson and her toddler son. Tarika was killed in a questionable drug raid and her young son was wounded. Stories like these abound throughout the United States, people killed, maimed, and tortured because our police and our courts will do anything for a drug bust. Half a million people rotting in jail for non-violent drug offenses. Time again to return to Franklin's quote about security and freedom. How much of either did Kathryn and Tarika have? What about Tarika's young son? It should be important to point out, if you didn't read the article in question, that Katrhyn Johnston broke no laws, not even drug laws. This is the philosophical cost of America's War on Personal Freedom, the death of innocents and the loss of all of our freedom.
Now for my Socratic argument. Think on these things and see to what truths they lead you. If we are conducting a 'War on Drugs', against whom do we fight? It can't be the drugs, they are not people and can have no individual motivation. While it's called a war, it is conducted by the policing agencies of the federal, state, and local governments, so the enemy cannot be a foreign nation. Who are the victims in this war? What about collateral damage?
To the legal argument against this war. When the Constitution was written, it was written as a list of clearly enumerated rights provided to the government. This was the concept that was supposed to be written into the tenth amendment to protect future generations against government expansion. While successive Supreme Courts have ignored this particular prevision to the benefit of themselves and the Federal Government, it still hold legal weight. I have written previously that America is supposed to be about self-governance, and that the legal structure of the United States is supposed to support this. Read carefully over the Constitution. You will find no mention of Congress having the right to ban any product out right. Indeed, consider the Nineteenth Amendment. It bans the production, distribution, and sale of alcohol. If Congress had the power to ban any product it chose, why the need for such an amendment? Because Congress does not have this power. And any power not provided to the Congress is held by the States and the People there-in.
As the legal argument is so straight-froward, I'll move on the economic. For an up to the minute cost, feel free to see this link. At time of this writing, the combined monies in the War on Personal Freedom total over five billion. Yeah, we're barely over a month into 2009 and already our governments have spent five billion dollars fighting this war. If spending continues, the cost in 2009 will be more than sixty billion. This doesn't include the costs of pushing a multi-billion dollar industry into the hands of criminals and generally out of our economy.
This is the important part of the economic argument. Black markets exist outside the white markets that make up an economy. How much is estimated for the value of this trade? Some estimates have been as high as half a trillion dollars world wide, though around $300 billion is more accurate. American's alone spent nearly fifty billion dollars (additional statistics sited here on that site) on drugs in 2000. So, not only is the United States going to spend $60 billion dollars on its true illegal war, but it's going to allow the possible tax income on an additional $60 billion go because of it.
What else could this large sum provide in the real economy? Wealth begets wealth. Any business reinvests in itself, allowing for a more productive work-force and economy. The secondary costs of this war cannot be estimated. There is no way to tell what could be earned if the profits of the drug trade were in the legal economy and could be reinvested and set to work like the profits of all other products.
Then there are the human costs. I've discussed some of them previously, but now I'm going to talk about the secondary costs. Consider this: In Los Angeles alone there were 587 gang related homicides in 2001. One third of these victims are generally non-gang related, or innocent bystanders. These would be the 'collateral damage' of America's War on Personal Freedom. Gangs are supported by the money of illicit drug trafficking (and other crime). If drugs were made legal, the funds which support these gangs would dry up, and the gangs themselves would become much less of a threat. Without the money provided by the drug trade, they would lose the ability to purchase weapons, bribe officials, and engage in other crimes. While I am not trying to argue that gangs would go away entirely, they would loose a great deal of their power and with it, the threat would be reduced.
Our illegal drug war doesn't just cost Americans. It effects our relations with the world, our neighbors, and our relations with them. Mexico is currently the hardest hit by this. Drug traffickers use the country as a staging point to smuggle their product into the US. These drug cartels are in open war against the Mexican government, and all actions taken by that government do not steam the tide. These cartels engage in kidnapping, extortion, and other crimes to support their main business; the distribution of drugs. Mexico isn't the only casualty. Operation Just Cause in 1989 against Panama to remove Manuel Noriega was part of our War on Personal Freedom, as Noriega had financed his actions through the trade of cocaine. Columbia has only in the past decade managed to fight down the drug cartels into a manageable threat, and the cost of thousands of lives. Even today, our brave solders fight the Taliban and others in Afghanistan who are financed by the production and selling of poppies for heron production.
After an exhausting search, the only answer I can find for the number of deaths by gang-related violence in the US as whole in 2007 was 15,000. That's three thousand more than my estimate of the number saved by this illegal war. That's sixty billion dollars spent here, increased violence in other countries, complications in the War on Terror and other diplomatic problems, lost tax revenue, and lost freedom for all Americans. And for what? So that people can die by others' violent actions rather than their own folly.
I do not advocate the recreational use of any drugs, legal or illegal. At no point should any of my arguments be construed such as to suggest that people should use these substances for any reason. However, in the light of the costs and the possible benefits, especially the cost in American freedom and safety from inappropriate government action, how can anyone continue to call the War on Personal Freedom anything but what it is?
To our so-called leaders: We are adults. Treat us as such and stop this costly and illegal war.

Israel and Hamas

The Palestinian people have long suffered. They have had foreign invaders ruling their lands for thousands of years, starting with the Babylonians, then the Persians, then the Romans, and many more until finally the British drove the Ottomans out during the First World War and ruled until Israeli independence in1948. It is important to point out that when I say 'the Palestinian people', I refer to all the people of Palestine, not just the Muslims who have adopted the title for themselves. Understanding this history will take us a long way in understanding the desires of both the Israelis and the people now called the Palestinians.
It is the natural desire of people to rule themselves, both as individuals and as a nation. As I believe it to be the best state of Man for him to rule himself, please keep in mind that I support a free and independent Palestinian state for these people. It is what they deserve as human beings, and a goal which should be desired by all. However, this goal will not be realized until such time that Hamas and other similar organizations are discredited, unsupported, and disbanded.
Before I elaborate on this statement, I will review the modern history behind the current situation. As I said before, the Palestinian people have long suffered, and at no time is this more true than the treatment of the Islamic people we now call Palestinians during the last half of the twentieth century. If you think this a statement against Israel, please read on and see that it is not. Israel has not always acted perfectly, but they are not the source of Palestinian suffering.
While most claim that Israeli independence was granted by the UN, this is not the whole story. Hundreds of thousands of Jews emigrated to Palestine during British rule, even when Britain restricted their immigration during the 1930s due to Arabic pressures. During the Holocaust and directly after, this level of emigration increased dramatically, and the Jews of Palestine began a series of diplomatic and military actions to gain their independence. This was acknowledged by the British and the UN in 1947. It was at this time that Israel and Trans-Jordan were created to be the free lands for the Jewish and Muslim residents of the lands.
Israel granted full citizenship to its Muslim people, complete with freedom to practice their religion, keep their property, and all the rights granted to their Jewish citizens. Their Arabic neighbors did not do the same, but instead seized Jewish property, attempted forced conversions, and used other tactics to remove or drive out their Jewish residents. Their actions succeeded well and more Jewish people emigrated into the new Israel nation. There is no real evidence to suggest that the Israelis wanted anything but to live free and in peace in their ancestral homeland.
They would not have this option. In May, 1948 six different Arabic nations declared war and invaded Israel. They were supported by the Muslim citizens of Israel, many of whom provided passive or active support in the effort. They provided guidance through the country, food and logging to solders, and some even joined in active military action against the Israeli Defense Forces. Perhaps Israel was wrong, but while driving out the invaders, the swept along the Muslim citizens as well and forced them all from the country. I say perhaps they were wrong, but I do not think so. While many innocent Muslims were certainly caught by this action and forced from their homes and lands, the Israels had little choice in what they did. A new, young nation cannot always take the time to determine who exactly is a threat when it is defending itself against total destruction.
The real question is, what was the reward to the Muslim Israelis (not yet called Palestinians) who supported their Muslim brethren? They were denied citizenship in Arabic lands, forced into refugee camps, and left to rot by the Arabic governments where they were. And so here they have remained until this day, some sixty years later. As a comparison, consider the people of Tibet, driven from their homes by the Chinese into India. These refugees, with no cultural, religions, or ethnic ties to their host country, are given full rights of citizenship by the Indians.
There is also the matter of the West Bank, Gaza, and the Golan Heights. All three of these areas were captured by Israel during defensive actions against Arabic aggressive wars. While this exasperated the refugee situation, these occupations were necessary defensive actions. The Golan Heights have been returned, and Gaza was granted full independence in 2005, with all Jewish citizens forcefully removed by the Israeli government. The short-term occupation of the Sinai by Israel in the 1950s was a response to Egyptian refusal to allow shipping through the Suez Canal and was one of the few aggressive actions taken by the country. They withdrew under UN pressure, only to have Egypt again close the area to Israeli shipping. This action was later stopped due to diplomatic action.
This has been the history of Israel. Constant aggressive action by their Arabic neighbors, UN pressure against them, and being demonized by the world for the plight of what we now call the Palestinians. In less than 30 years, they fought no less than five defensive wars against multiple Arabic countries. Despite these monumental challenges, they have not only survived but they have thrived. They have managed to maintain an open, free, and prosperous society that still provides all their citizens with all the rights that we here in American consider basic. It is a diplomatic country, with freedom of speech, press, and religion. They are an egalitarian society, with women and ethnic minorities in top positions.
And what of the Palestinians? I have often said 'what we now call' in this essay, and for good reason. These Muslims had no identifier until then 1970s, when the Palestinian Liberalization Organization under Yasser Arafat began to call them Palestinians as a PR ploy. Since that time, pressure against Israel has only increased, despite everything they have done to make life better for the Palestinians.
Consider the withdrawal from Gaza in 2005. After three decades of building infrastructure in the area, the Israelis left it all intact and removed all their citizens from the area. The Palestinians had roads, schools, hospitals, water and power, orchards, hydroponic farms . . . in short, everything they needed to provide for a prosperous free country. What has Hamas, supposedly in the name of these people, done with it? They indoctrinate the children to hate Jews with propaganda, terrorize their people with threats, take all their foreign aide to purchase weapons, and use the homes of innocents as launching points for their unguided rockets. They send their young men, and women, into Israel with explosives to target civilians. For more than three years and over 6,000 rocket attacks, with hundreds of deaths, the Israelis responded with diplomatic action and embargoes. They still allowed humanitarian aide to pass, but attempted to stop what weapon shipments they could. They still provided power and water to Gaza.
And when they finally did take military action, how did they do so? Was it carpet bombing and gas attacks? No, it was precision bomb attacks preceded with thousands of telephone calls and leaflets letting the innocents of Gaza know what was coming, despite the lost of strategic and tactical surprise. They have consistently chosen to use troops on the ground over air strikes to minimize civilian causalities despite the increased danger to Israeli forces. And how does the UN and the Western world respond? With more derision, a focus on the exaggerated claims of Palestinian deaths by Hamas, and a forced cease-fire agreement that Hamas violated within days.
Hamas and their fellow organizations have used the Palestinians as cannon fodder. They send their 'suicide' bombers into Israeli citizens, targeting civilians. They force their way into private homes using physical intimidation to set up their launch pads. They hide weapons and military supplies under mosques, hospitals, and apartment buildings. When the Israelis come, they use more women and children as human shields, then they cry to the world about the 'horrors' visited upon them.
When are we in the West, and especially America, going to stop playing their game? When are we going to denounce this barbarism for what it is? When are we going to tell the UN to support Israel or loose American support? We shouldn't support Israel because it is a Jewish state. Israel is nation of freedom in a land of oppression. Before the invasion of Iraq, it was the only Middle Eastern country to practice any form of democracy, to provide freedom of speech and press, equal rights to women and other minorities, and it's still the only country to provide full freedom of religion. Don't these things mean anything to us?
When are we going to acknowledged that Hamas and similar organizations are the true source of modern Palestinian suffering? When are we going to stand up together and name these organizations for the barbaric tribes of death that they are? In the past three years, the UN Human Rights council has passed more than 20 resolutions against Israel, but not a single one against Hamas, Hezbollah, or any other terrorist organization. These organizations feed their people into a meat grinder day after day while the UN and Western media organizations denounce the Israelis who have put themselves at risk to protect the innocents of their own country and the Palestinians. These actions are completely and totally unacceptable to me, and should be to any society that would call itself civilized.
Every statement that isn't my opinion in the essay is verifiable through a quick and easy Google search using key terms. Feel free to verify. I will stand beside my support of Israel and against Hamas until my last breath. If you disagree with my opinion here, I ask you only one question.
Are you proud to support Hamas?

Please, trouble me with too much freedom.

Here's another nice little quote from Franklin. He was asked at the end of the Constitutional Convention what had been wrought. “A republic, if you can keep it.”
I'm also going to borrow from Jefferson real quick. “I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences of too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it”
Keep in mind also the quote from Franklin on liberty and security.
All three of these quotes can be seen as warnings from the two men most responsible for the philosophy and arguments that lead to the Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary War. Benjamin Franklin was advocating more freedom and liberty from a very young age, and Thomas Jefferson was the foremost legal mind of his time. It was his arguments on the nature of Law and the British government that provided the Colonies with their philosophical and legal legitimacy.
Mike tells us to consider the Constitution in full. The purpose of the Constitution was to bring the many States of America together into a stronger Federation to ease trade and provide for the common defense. It was not a philosophical document, as was the Declaration, it was a legal one. It gave the enumerated order under which the States would be United into a true Federation. This is one of the major reasons that when speaking philosophically on the nature and purpose of Government, I'm likely to fall back on the Declaration or other works by Jefferson (and sometimes John Locke, Jefferson's inspiration) and not the Constitution.
Now, here a few questions that should probably be answered. Just what do we mean by 'republic?' A republic, in it's most basic form, is a form of government where the deciding body is meant to provide representation of the society as a whole, and the individuals of that body are representing particular sections of that society. I'm sure that most people, right here, are wondering just how that might differ from democracy. In a democracy, all governmental decisions are done through the whole of the population of citizens. In ancient Athens (the only known pure democracy I can remember right now) this was done by calling a meeting of the Senate, in which the group was the first people there up to a certain number. Day to day functions were carried out by offices chosen by lottery. The other major difference between democracy and a republic is that in a republican government, the government provides a check against the passing desires of the people to help ensure that all laws passed are good for the current and future society. This necessitates that the government itself is controlled through some action so as to not aggregate power to a particular person or body, or to the government in general. A country can call itself a 'Republic' very easy. But only when the government is in constant check against power aggregation can it be said to be an accurate statement (I'm looking at you, China).
So, what then does Franklin mean when he says that a republic has been wrought if we can only hold on to it? Franklin's meaning is quite clear: do not trust the government to keep itself in check. Don't give it an inch, for it will take a hundred miles (and desire a light-year). Yes, I mean that even the smallest power given to the government for the sake of 'order' (or 'the good' or 'the children') will lead to an ever increasing aggregation of power at the expense of our freedoms.
This leads me to the quote from Franklin on freedom and security. Mike calls it 'one of the most foolish things he ever said', and argues that because an amount of security is necessary to provide for freedom (true) it only follows to reason that some freedom be 'trimmed' such that security can be provided. However, he misses Franklin's warning. The trading of essential freedom for security provides the government that inch it needs, and so the taking begins. I'll use an example to express my meaning: the registration of sex offenders.
Seems like a good idea, right? Let people know that there is a serial pedophile in the neighborhood so that the people can protect themselves and their children from his perverted ways. I'm going to ignore for the time being the illogic of releasing a person that is still such a danger to society and others that his freedoms must be restricted in such a fashion. This is about government expansion, not about government incompetence. It started with serial pedophiles. Then serial rapists (okay, still good...) had to register. Then came those convicted of a single rape (uh...). And now? Now we're threatening twelve year olds with being put on the lists without trial or conviction because they swatted a female classmate's butt in play.
Want another one? Let's talk taxes. The Sixteenth Amendment confirmed that Congress could tax income at it's discretion (Congress had already attempted to do so and got struck down by the Supreme Court) in 1913. Originally, it was a set, flat tax of 4% on all earnings over $4,000. I don't know all the steps involved, but by the 1970s we had top tax rates at over 80%, and even today we have a single volume of law that counts over 66,000 pages and is enforced by the largest single agency of the United States government. This agency is so powerful that it can operate completely separate from judicial oversight, needs provide no evidence to charge, investigate, and begin prosecution for tax evasion. Not only that, but if an agent of the IRS provides you with incorrect tax advice, you, the citizen, are held accountable and can still be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
How about welfare? The first welfare program (still in effect, anyway) was the Families with Dependent Children program. It was designed to provide extra money to widows of World War II servicemen who had children. Today? Entitlement speeding totals over 1.7 trillion dollars, or about 62% of the Federal budget of approximately 2.9 trillion dollars. (That figure includes Medicare and Social Security, which total around 1 trillion and make up the bulk. This wouldn't be nearly so bad if we actually had a SS trust fund the way we were promised back in the '30s.)
This is exactly what Franklin's dual warnings are all about. We're loosing our republic because we allow power aggregation for the 'good' and for 'order'. And as we loose the republic, or freedoms go with it.
And with our freedoms, our security.
Please, trouble me with too much freedom.

Freedom, Justice, and Order

This gets us into the prickly question of freedom. With the sole exception of anarchic libertarians, Conservative and Libertarians do agree on this premise. The primary function of government is to keep the peace, defend against foreign enemies and powers and maintaining justice. When the State goes beyond these, it falls into quickly difficulty, because not only it was not “designed” to cover the many facets of life, it is incompetent when it tries to do so. In fact, the more the State tries to shepherd, the less well it performs in its primary functions. So far, so good. Yet even here, our agreement is only on the surface.
History shows that Libertarians and Conservatives mean different things when speaking of peace, defense and justice. This is no small thing in itself—worth a book or two at least. It goes, however, even deeper than that. Toward what end are these tasks aimed? Assume our hypothetical government did its duty in keeping the peace, defending the realm, and upholding justice, exactly what is this State doing these for?
The Libertarian has no doubts what the answer is. The chief function of government should be to defend and protect his liberty. In fact, this is pretty much what the Libertarian believes is what the Constitution’s aim is all about.1
But, if one optimistically follows this notion to its logical ends, does it produce for a good and humane society? To put it somewhat sentimentally, what kind of world does it leave for our children and those who come after us?
Libertarian literature is paradoxical on this point. Many will respond to effect that it is not their burden to worry and be concerned for a good society nor should it be. Freedom is its own blessing and inheritance to our descendents. As we have flourished, our children will follow to their own maturity and harvest of their endeavors. A country of free men will in turn produce its own “good society” secured by the superior virtue of liberty.
This is certainly attractive; but it has something uneasy about it. At least to a Conservatives ears, to say that a good society strictly speaking is not a Libertarian’s obligation strikes of ingratitude at its worst or gullibility its at best. To ingratitude, what is it to depend of the blessings of one’s society or one’s government and then turn to say you owe it nothing? To gullibility, where in human history do we see this transmission of “Libertarian” liberty into a good, humane culture?
Libertarians typically return that this is where Conservatives misunderstand the Founding. What Conservatives consider abuse in fact is the very liberty the founders risked their lives and treasure. It is freedom’s privilege that the only morally valid obligations are those one choose’s for himself and by no other. The Libertarian believes the Constitution and the Founders were Libertarian in heart and soul—and to the extent their original intentions were carried out demonstrates liberty’s “invisible hand” in building “that most excellent empire”.
To say the least, Conservatives could not disagree more.
The assertion that the “Constitution and the Founders were Libertarian in heart and soul” is one Conservatives dismiss out of hand. If the Founders singular concern was liberty, the Articles of Confederation would have served quite well. Under its terms, America would indeed have a weak central government. But the Founders found the Articles deficient and the Philadelphia Convention (constitutional convention) was called. More was needed. In addition, Conservatives maintain that every individual is born with obligations and that the Founders could scarcely be thought to believe otherwise.
As one might expect, Conservatives object and counter that the Constitution was written and born of Conservative2 structure. It is not that Libertarians are totally wrong. It is that they do not see the Constitution and its conventions in full.
The first item to consider is the Preamble. The Preamble, the Constitution's r'aison d'etre, holds in its words the hopes and dreams of the delegates to the convention, a justification for what they had done:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility3, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare4, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity5, do ordain6 and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The Founders had much more in mind that the single pursuit of liberty. The Constitution was written by several committees over the summer of 1787, but the committee most responsible for the final form we know today is the "Committee of Stile and Arrangement". This Committee was tasked with getting all of the articles and clauses agreed to by the Convention and putting them into a logical order. On September 10, 1787, the Committee of Style set to work, and two days later, it presented the Convention with its final draft. The members were Alexander Hamilton, William Johnson, Rufus King, James Madison, and Gouverneur Morris—men who had fundamental differences. The actual text of the Preamble and of much of the rest of this final draft is usually attributed to Gouverneur Morris.
Of these James Madison is commonly claimed to be a Libertarian. Even if for the sake of argument we stipulate this were true, Madison’s role as the “Father of the Constitution” is somewhat exaggerated7. Thomas Jefferson is also one claimed to be one of Libertarian’s own. Again, if for the sake of argument we stipulate this were true, Jefferson was not a Framer. He was not there at the Philadelphia Convention. Instead, he was out of the country serving as minister to France. While both Jefferson and Madison had a great affinity with one another, in must be noted that they worked in opposition to Hamilton and Washington—two men who were also prominent at the Philadelphia Convention.
But we are getting a little ahead of ourselves. We will have more to say about the Founding later. But here I wish to return to our main subject of freedom, justice and order.
Be that as it may, a society must have three elements to be good, humane, and a nourishing of life. Those constituents are justice, order and freedom. Without each, no home can be called good. But among these three, order is the most important. This is so because without an endurable order justice and freedom soon will not exist. Without order, it can be said one can have the freedom of a fugitive or a savage can be said to have freedom. The fugitive always lives with the threat of discovery and the savage, while he hunts, always fears being the hunted. In either case, nothing is predictable or secure. To some, this is the epitome of adventure, but it counts as no freedom to those who wish to live in the open. Such “freedom” would truly be reduced to the Hobbesian “all against all” making life “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short".
It is reliability certain that Benjamin Franklin is to have said “those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety”. We can quibble about what the modifiers “essential” and “temporary” mean, but in the limited sense Franklin was quite correct. But in the main, it was one of the more foolish things he ever said. To make “freedom” the solitary absolute principle in our lives together undermines both justice and order. If we make “freedom” the whole end of our civil social order events will undo freedom itself. Indeed, to maintain such a “neat” “organizing” principle that determines all else does not describe men as they are and certainly is too inept to govern them.
Libertarians answer in kind stating that the Conservative insistence on “order” in fact opens the door for all sorts of mischief by the State. It may even serve as an open door for governmental sponsorship of Conservative mischief. Such a notion has been expressed to me in several ways without bringing Conservative nuisances into it. Some Libertarians have stated:
“By making freedom, justice and order important in deliberations it makes it so that none of them will determine anything.”8
It my limited experience, nothing will drive a libertarian to ire or drink (and sometimes both) as when it is said that the need for order may necessarily trim freedom’s sails in many instances. Part of the problem is with the word “order”. As it often appears, the word has a vaguely “Nazi” odor. In any event, for Libertarians, “order” doesn’t sound anything like minimal government.
It is not that there isn’t something to the Libertarians’ concern. “Order” without justice and freedom isn’t anything that recommends anything to anybody9. The Conservative answer is that it is by the collected wisdom, experience, and moral imagination that we keep order, justice and freedom in balance. Order, justice and freedom provide a three-point contact to which they may be balanced. Catholicism maintains that, in the realm of Christianity, three elements called revealed truth, reason and tradition form the basis for the rule of faith such as the three legs of a level and steady stool. Each in their measure supports the other. Don’t get caught up the citation from Catholic theology involved in the illustration. It is a mere example of the form of thought of what makes for a humane society. In balancing order, justice and freedom, freedom can be exercised at its fullest.
-Written by Crabby Apple Mike Lee
1 Although, it must be pointed out, nowhere in the actual text of the Constitution does it make any such claim.
2 The word “conservative” itself did not come into use until well into the 19th century.
3 One of the concerns of the Framers was that the government prior to that under the Constitution was unable, by force or persuasion, to quell rebellion or quarrels amongst the states. The government watched in horror as Shay's Rebellion transpired just before the Convention, and some states had very nearly gone to war with each other over territory (such as between Pennsylvania and Connecticut over Wilkes-Barre). One of the main goals of the Convention, then, was to ensure the federal government had powers to squash rebellion and to smooth tensions between states. The Anti-Federalists opposed the adoption of the Constitution precisely because they had sympathy for such revolts as the Whiskey Rebellion for which Washington would crush with disproportionate force with the army.
4 Welfare in today's context also means organized efforts on the part of public or private organizations to benefit the poor, or simply public assistance. Despite Liberal insistence, this is not the meaning of the word as used in the Constitution. By “general welfare” the Constitution was referring to the “commonweal”—the common good of all. Indeed, the “general welfare” was the culmination of everything that came before it - the whole point of having tranquility, justice, and defense was to promote the general welfare - to allow every state and every citizen of those states to benefit from what the government could provide. The framers looked forward to the expansion of land holdings, industry, and investment, and they knew that a strong national government would be the beginning of that.
5 By this, the Founders meant future generations.
6 To order by or as if by decree, from the Latin; ordinaire, to organize
7 Even the “Bill of Rights” owes more to George Mason’s “Virginia Declaration of Rights” as well as the original “English Bill of Rights” than to James Madison. No small part is owed to Patrick Henry and his insistence that he would not sign the Constitution unless a “bill of right” was included.
8 From personal correspondence with self-identified libertarian
9 According to C.S.Lewis, in the human world of “masters” and “slaves”, some men are indeed only fit to be slaves. But no man is fit to be a master to another.
See http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html for a Constitutional directory.

A little more on inherent rights

“A bill of rights is what the people need against every government.” Three guess who said that. Yeah, I know you'll get the answer in two lines, but stop reading and take a guess or three.
It was Thomas Jefferson, author of the Deceleration of independence and original Republican (Those who we would now call Federalist, but opposed the Constitution until amended, and thus labeled by their opponents and history as Anti-Federalists. This only proves that historians do not appreciate irony.).
Two quick points. Jefferson's state, Virgina, was the first State to ever publish a bill of rights, and the first State to ever adopt a written constitution. And when I say first State, I mean exactly that. In the whole of human history, no government had ever before adopted a written constitution nor a bill of rights.
Second, doesn't that statement just scream inherent rights for you? Does a 'bill of rights' grant you rights, or does it protect them?
I think that Jefferson's position is clear.

The Politics of Marriage

Last night's forum asked both candidates for President to define 'marriage'. A good question, and the definition of such has been a major contention of debate here in the United States for some years now. It mostly centers around the question of the 'right' to get married, and why such a 'right' is denied to those of homosexual persuasion. Some have claimed homosexuality to be a life-style choice, and use this as a justification to argue against same-sex marriage. I'm not going to be discussing homosexuality at all, so I'm not going to go into any further depth. For the purpose of this post, sexual attraction as being preset or a choice is irrelevant.
The simple fact is, you do not have an inherent right to get 'married'. By the same token, the State has no business granting or denying marriage licenses. This whole argument is going to be about semantics, but I will also tell you that the whole political debate on marriage is about semantics. And dealing with the specific question of marriage in America is nearly impossible to make an easy determination about what constitutes a 'traditional' marriage because the institution of marriage throughout history has gone through many permutations and changes. And it's impossible to pin down what exactly might be the best way to determine how we should approach this issue, at least with a low-level research of the subject. History is so filled with conflicts and changes on the subject, that one can simply pick and choose the facts one wants to support their arguments. So I say, toss history, or at very least, remember the traditions and use some proper reason.
Here are some things we can know. Christian tradition and doctrine has a great deal to say about marriage, including the definition of such as being a union between man and woman before the eyes of God. I've stated before that inherent rights are the gift of our Creator and it would stand to reason that if Christian doctrine defines marriage as a union between man and women before God, then we should have the inherent right to marriage. Well, yes, but only if one assumes the Christian tradition as the final word on all things Divine. I do not confuse the Church with the Divine. The church is still man-made organization (even if it is divinely inspired, it is not divinely run). Along with the traditions found in most religions supporting marriage, we can safely put marriage as a mostly religious institution. This is not to deny the tradition and evidence of it being a social and civil institution in the past, but it is important to realize past influence of religion on civil society, and to understand that it is only after the Enlightenment that civil government and religious influence began to truly separate. Indeed, it appears that most of the earliest marriage laws in America, passed in the 19th century, were primarily designed to prevent interracial marriage, and not to sanctify the practice.
At this point, let me be clear what inherent right you do have. You do have the inherent right to form a union of mutual commitment with whomever you choose. The government has the responsibility to recognize this union. This also includes the right to enter into polygamous or polyandrous committed unions. And yes, I'm using committed unions in place of the term civil unions. A civil union is recognized by the government, the ruling civil authority. Where the real question comes in is what interest the government might have in such things. The answer is very little. Government has no role of society, let alone determining the relationships of the individual. It's only question comes in taxation, and it can set its rules as it desires there.
Now, I said this was going to be all about semantics. And it has been. Marriage is the holy union of a man and a woman before God, and thus the realm of the Church and not the government. Civil unions are the place of the government. It is not up to the government to determine with whom you can or cannot form such a union. That determination is your right, and the government's job is to protect that right, not regulate it. And as long as the government continues to push itself in where it shouldn't be, namely in granting marriage licenses, then it will continue to either destroy a traditional institution or create a dual level of citizenship, where on group (homosexuals, in this case) will not be have the same rights as another group. And we do have a word for this, it's called discrimination.

Political Morality

After asserting that we should not attempt to legislate morality, it probably seems odd that I would speak about anything which I would define as 'political morality'. Perhaps I would do better to state that we should not attempt to legislate personal morality. And the reason that I say this is because the attempt to legislate personal morality creates heavy restrictions upon the individual in the name of the State (or the people, take your pick).
Political morality, on the other hand, takes into consideration the actions under which a government can still be considered a good, liberal government.1 I submit for consideration a simple means by which we can make this determination. A good, liberal government passes laws and enforces them in such a way as to provide for the greatest level of individual freedom while still protecting the individual's inherent rights.
It is under this consideration that I make the following statement:
“[I] would stand between the rapist and his victim ready to fight, kill, or die as needed. Our willingness to accept this action as right and just is what makes the laws against rape moral in the political sense. This same argument can be used to justify the laws against murder, theft, fraud, and many others. We cannot give onto the State the power to do things that we will not do as individuals and call ourselves a just society.”
To make clear the reasoning here I will go from a to d. A: The rapist has no inherent right to commit his action, but the victim has the right not to be violated. B: Defending a rapist against his victim protects the individual's inherent right against violent attack. C: Therefore, defending the victim is a just act. D: Because the individual has the inherent right not to be violated, the laws against rape are also just.
Now, lets talk about vigilantism versus policing power. As I stated in Rights in Conflict, one of the primary functions of government is to provide a neutral arbitrator when rights come into conflict. This naturally assumes that policing power of government is generally preferable over vigilantism as mediator of justice. This only works, however, as long as that government continues to work in such a way that protects the inherent rights of all. The very danger of vigilantism is as Mike has put it, that it will bring innocents into the conflict and become a matter of revenge versus a matter of justice. It is protecting 'kith and kin', as Mike puts it, that allows for a government to provide for a free and secure society and insure that individuals, and only those individuals, are held responsible for individual action.
And again, I will say that none of these arguments work well against the availability of abortion. Let me try and sum up my whole problem with the abortion debate. First, I find abortion morally indefensible. There can be no more innocent or defenseless life than that of the unborn. My problem with legislating against abortion, however, is when it comes with the State trying to assert itself as de-facto decider of the unborn. A blanket law against abortion provides the State with the power to determine if a particular woman will bring her child to term. Considering the general tendency for government to expand its powers (more on this later) then how long before the government decides it can order life to be created? When the ability becomes available, what is to stop the government from deciding that the life created must follow particular ideals? Our government already states we must buckle our seat-belts to protect ourselves. What's to stop them, once in conjunction with right to determine the fate of possible future citizens, to tell all parents that they must remove all genetic markers for the tendency towards obesity? Or homosexuality? Or aggressiveness? All of these would be 'good' things and would protects us, wouldn't they? Yes, all of these traits are influenced, though not completely controlled, by genetics.
While this argument may seem fantastical or paranoid, consider this: government power rarely decreases. Our government already attempts multiple laws for 'our own good'. The technology already exists to change the genome of a eucaryotic cell. The human genome has been mapped and new genes are being identified at a quick pace. The US court system has already provided mixed results on your rights over your own tissues and genetics (see whoownsyourbody.org). Really, how paranoid am I to worry about the government asserting its power over the unborn?
1. Liberal government here is used as a government that supports basic freedom and expression, this is not a reference to the Liberal political ideology.

“Authority Exchange?”

You make a curious, related Statement (forgive me for saying so) I find nearly opaque:
“To return to my example, I have no doubts Mike that you, as I, would stand between the rapist and his victim ready to fight, kill, or die as needed. Our willingness to accept this action as right and just is what makes the laws against rape moral in the political sense. This same argument can be used to justify the laws against murder, theft, fraud, and many others. We cannot give onto the State the power to do things that we will not do as individuals and call ourselves a just society.”
By this I take it that if presumably we would not stand in the way of the unfortunately raped girl, then we should not ask the State to do what we would not do ourselves. Where does this notion come from? It is not at all established that the State must follow one individual’s example. Even if, for the sake of argument, we accept this principle, which individual or hosts of individuals is the State to take its dictates? Even in relatively small populations this is unworkable. Plus, if I were you, I wouldn’t be so sure to think what I or someone else would do. But more importantly, I believe Libertarians may be misconceiving the dynamics on the ground.
In fact, we demand the State to do all sorts of things we cannot or will not for a variety of reasons do ourselves. We often charge the State with police powers to act as the presumed authority to impose due process in place of vigilantism. Vigilantism is a real hazard and destructive to society; yet citizens often resort to acting outside the law when the State cannot or will not impose order during grave frictions among fellow citizens.
Well, the police can’t be everywhere, so absent the gendarmes, would I assert my brute strength and stand in the way of our hypothetical rape victim? No, but not for the reasons you might imagine.

Societies of Law and Societies of Vendetta

I would not do so for the respect of the “rule of law”. The rule of law is an inheritance from the days of the Roman Republic. It is largely true Rome’s observance of this principle was spotty at best. Yet the idea comes down to us. Before, justice was a matter of vendetta and blood feud. Insults and injuries to a family were settled by vengeance—an act which may come immediately or (worse) plotted to take place in the open future. Of course, this often meant weaker individuals and families (it has to be remembered crimes against one person also meant a crime against kith and kin.) could not take even this justice. This also meant that vendettas jeopardized peaceful transactions and community trust for one another as both friends and associates may find themselves unintentionally under the umbrella of vengeance.
The rule of law meant the transfer of seeking justice and vindication to the State in a variety of judgeships. This held individuals responsible rather than kith and kin. It provided for the exoneration of the innocent. It also put in safeguards that punishment was meted out so that the guilty are punished no more than they deserved. The key is that the actions of all parties were placed under restraint in submission to civil authority.
Under our system of the rule of law, the young woman may proceed to her transgression under the protections of the State under our current liberalized circumstances. As the Pro-Life community presses on to persuade and convince the majority of its case, someday this may not be the case. Until that time, the Pro-life community is bound to the societal moral duty of restraint.1 Under the regime of vendetta, on the other hand, this same young woman will be bound to honor the customs of her fellow tribal members. Should she fail to honor those expectations she may be held captive. But if she indeed was allowed to walk the path leading to the “Satanic Mill”, in vendetta she could well find her abortionist swinging hanged at the nearest tall tree.
-Written by Crabby Apple Mike Lee
1 This is a hard devil’s bargain for the Pro-Life community. Restraint from civil violence sometimes leads to slurs from the Pro-Choice folk to the effect that if abortion really is the equivalent to the Holocaust then how come Pro-Lifers don’t do something decisive about it? This, of course, is a rude accusation of hypocrisy. But it is the judgment of the Pro-Life movement that failing to preserve a civil society poses a much greater threat. In edition, no forum will emerge out of chaos and disorder to make their case. “Decisive” action simply isn’t on the table.

Freedom and Security

In my last post, I put up a quote by Benjamin Franklin. Actually, it was a slightly paraphrased quote of his. Franklin's original quote goes 'They who give up essential liberty to obtain temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.' Although the quote I gave before adds to this concept, I don't think it detracts from the original meaning. And indeed, this idea is also central to the American debate.
Safety, or security, is the natural desire of all people. Indeed, every living thing has a desire for safety so that it can feed and reproduce in peace. I even said on many occasions that providing for a safe society is the primary function of government. So then, if safety is necessary for a free society, why would it seem that one would give up any freedom to increase security?
This question becomes very important, especially in times of war. Actions taken by the Bush Administration after the attacks of 9/11, while hardly measuring high against actions taken by previous presidents, pushed this question to the fore front of the American debate. The NSA's wiretapping program, when brought to light, made many people question if an essential liberty, of privacy, had been sacrificed for greater security. But why did it not occur to people to question other essential liberties that have been sacrificed in the name of security?
I'm not going to go into a discussion of the NSA wiretapping program. I'm doing this for two reasons. First, the long-range impact of the program is still being seen and it's best to consider these things after the fact. Second, while I disagree with the action itself, I fully understand the reasons why it was done, and accept them as valid.
No, instead I'm going to discuss other things where essential liberties have been taken from the American public in the name of greater security. Lets take the essential liberty of freedom of movement. While our government currently makes no pretext to try and prevent you from living or working where you choose, it does attempt to limit your freedom of movement. Consider what our government calls your 'driving privileges'. What should be a basic right so that you may practice your freedom of movement, to do your business when, where, and how you choose, has already been co-opted by our government and instead they've managed to convince all of us that this right is instead a privilege simply because our constitution, written long before the invention of the automobile, doesn't recognize it as it does other rights, such as speech.
First, it becomes a privilege. Then arbitrary requirements are set forth so as to control it. This isn't an argument against licensing per se, but rather the requirements of insurance and registration of vehicles. The only valid argument for registration of vehicles is to provide for proof of ownership, and this can be done easily through the dealer. There's no need for government involvement. This is also not to say that government cannot provide for general traffic-control laws, but rather that slavish enforcement and their use for fund raising constitutes an abuse of power.
And I'll be doing a whole post about the abuses that constitute the War on Drugs. For now, take some time to consider how or government is taking more and more liberty with our freedoms. And all in the name of our security. Come to your own conclusions, then remember those conclusions when you here someone talking about doing something for our 'security'.

Operative Principles

While Mike may not have been attempting to do so, he did hit upon the major theme of my blog. This blog is exactly about operative principles. What is the principle under which our government (or more accurately, elected and appointed officials) functions? Is this principle correct? Should it be changed, and if so, how?
As I should have made clear in earlier posts, I contend that there are major ideas present within the political debate that are based on false premise. The major one of these being the idea of constitutional rights. Mike is mostly correct that my first operative principle is that freedom only comes with a lack of restraint from the State. He is close to being correct. Freedom only comes when the State maintains its correct role, in preserving freedom and not attempting to control it. Am I wrong to think this way? Am I misinterpreting Franklin's idea? “Any society which trades a little Freedom, for a little Security, would lose both and deserve neither.” I think, in fact, that this principle is also the very idea upon which this country was founded. And I would like to see some solid evidence to suggest that our Founding Fathers thought otherwise.
Now, Mike also suggests that my second operative principle is an 'almost pacifist response' to the use of violence. Here, he is totally incorrect. I have a moral repulsion against the use of violence, which is not the same thing. I understand the need for violent action. But it is the States responsibility to ensure that it uses this action only to ensure that the maximum number of people are able to practice their inherent rights as is possible. This naturally leads to the idea that the State should be as restricted and limited as possible, because when the state attempts to order the lives of its people, then it becomes detrimental to the practice of inherent rights.
Conservatives often use the 'slippery slope' argument. The idea being that if we accept what seems a small concession, then that concession will be used to justify a larger one, and then a larger one. Do they never stop and see how this in turn can be used against their positions? I ask them, where do we draw the line? What level of government involvement is correct? I know my answer, it is is minimal. I'm not saying this simply as a matter of personal belief. This is based off of the writings of our Founders and the Constitution itself.
Oh, and to Mike's Conservative 'anthropology'. I don't disagree with you. Evil, violence, and war are not aberrations of human behavior. Were we diverge is our understanding of government. The power of government is going to be a natural attractor to those whom would abuse that power and this would result in evil, violence, and war. Most importantly, because these people, attracted to and corrupted by the natural power of government, have the ability to influence the lives of millions of people... should we not want our government as restricted as possible?
To conclude:
This all started around the subject of abortion. And I will be the first person to acknowledge that my arguments can easily be used to further the idea that the law of this country should be anti-abortion. How better to support the idea of inherent rights than to ensure them for the unborn? I cannot argue against this. I'm very ambivalent about abortion. As a practice it abhors me. I cannot imagine a more brutal act of savagery other than perhaps child-rape. And yet, there is my practical side that acknowledges that sometimes it is necessary. Just as I acknowledge the need for violent action by the State, I acknowledge the need for people to make their own choices, even when I think that choice would be morally wrong.
Also, I am currently working on researching the history of anti-abortion laws in this country. I recently came across an article that suggested that they were not what they are sometimes suggested to be. After my research is complete, I will be posting.

Rights in Conflict

Before I get into the meat of this post, I want to clear up a couple of things from my last one.
First, I'm not very happy with it. It wasn't exactly what I was going for, and to keep my posts individually fairly short, I couldn't do better than a brief and simplified summary of the events leading to the Revolution.
Second, I used several sources for the facts and didn't provide any citation. The facts I pulled mostly from a variety of websites (Google American Revolution). Some of the philosophy is pulled both from 1776 by David McCaullugh and The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution by Kevin R.C. Gutzman. There's also my own take of the wittings of Jefferson, Madison, and others.
So, on to the important stuff...
With the concept of inherent rights, and furthermore, the idea that these rights are universal, it's self-evident that rights are going to come into conflict. These conflicts fall into two basic categories, when the rights of individuals conflict, and when the rights of the individual conflict with the rights of the government.
As the former is the far more likely and more difficult to arbitrate, I will cover the latter first. When a government is properly exercising its rights, when they come into conflict with the individual right, it is the responsibility of the individual to yield to the government. At first, this might seem to be counter to my over-all theme thus far, but realize the conditional phrase. When a government is properly exercising its rights. When the government steps outside of its enumerated rights, the individual is no longer held to the correct yielding of their rights to that government. It is this very idea that forms the basis of the whole Declaration. And while these statements beg for a discussion of what should be done when a government steps outside its enumerated rights, I'm not going to do that now.
Instead, most of this will be about the arbitration of individual rights in conflict. First, this is the primary purpose of government. Government's main role in the daily lives of its citizens is to be a neutral arbitrator. This is not to suggest that it should pass preemptive laws to avoid conflict, but rather should provide service to resolve the conflict. This is not to suggest that laws against murder, thievery, and other such violation of the individual right are incorrect. But rather that rather than try to avoid all possible conflict, the government should focus on resolving the conflict if necessary.
Government's other major role in society is to provide for a safe and free society. The singular right of the government that allows it to provide this is the right of policing. It is the right to utilize violence to achieve it's end. The providing of a police presence is the right and responsibility of the government. It follows that the government also has the responsibility to ensure that this police presence is honest, professional, and respecting to the right of the individual. It also follows that it is necessary for a justice system beyond this police system to provide a check against possible overreach on the part of the police. This concept is clearly enumerated in the Constitution through the 4th through 7th amendments.
However, it is not the role of the government to determine the rights of itself or the people. This is the concept enumerated in the 9th and 10th amendments. Instead, it lies to the people to determine these rights, and to take the responsibility to practice them. And this is what it means to have self-governance.

The Importance of Inherent Rights

After my assertion that we have inherent rather than constitutional rights, it seems only proper that I also expand on just why we would rather our rights be inherent. There are literally scores of examples across history of governments abusing the rights of their people. From communist Russia and China to Nazi Germany to ancient Rome. Indeed, one of the major reason for the American revolution was the direct violation of the Colonists' rights in the period between the end of the Seven Year War and the start of the American Revolution.
Yes, it started with taxes. The Seven Year War was the first war funded through deficit spending, and the British crown began to impose new taxes directly on the colonies to repay the deficits accrued in that conflict. It's important to understand that at this time, the American colonials were the freest people in the world. The British Empire was more than just a collection of colonized and conquered lands. It maintained the sea lanes, promoted free trade, and provided for all of its people the concept of certain constitutional rights. Many of these were carried over into the American constitution, including the right of habeas corpus, the right to keep arms, assembly, speech, trial by jury... Indeed, many of the rights we enjoy today were first openly practiced throughout the British Empire.
So why were the Colonists so upset over taxes? Mostly, it comes from an understanding of the Empire as held by the colonists. While the British parliament had the right to tax, they could not tax the colonists directly, but rather only through trade and only through general taxes. They could not target the colonies of America for particular taxes. Between 1765 and 1770, Parliament passed several laws to increase taxes specifically on America, and then continued by trying to force the colonies to purchase only those items through Britain so that the Colonists would have to pay the taxes.
Start to see why the Colonists would have problems with this? Not only are they being taxed by a body in which they have no representation, but this same body is doing everything they can to force the Colonists to pay those taxes. Civil unrest was the result.
And to crack down on civil unrest, the Crown and the Parliament passed more laws. Eventually, they would start to deny particular constitutional rights. Amongst these were... habeas corpus, trial by jury, assembly... and many many more. Some of the more audacious acts, to the American mind, was the setting of a foreign colony (Quebec) in governance over the American colonies, and forcing the quartering of troops in citizen's homes. It had been a long held tradition in England that King of England could not cross the threshold of the meanest house in England without the permission of the owner. But again, all of the rights the Americans held dear were constitutional, and not inherent. They were gifts of the royal crown, and thus could be taken away by the same.
And thus do we have Thomas Jefferson writing, 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men,' (emphasis mine).
With such clear and beautiful language establishing the concept of the inherent right, and making clear that governments role is to ensure our rights, not to provide them, how can any of us believe the lie that is the 'constitutional' right?

The First Great Lie of American Politics

In my last post, I spoke about the American Experiment, which I described as an experiment in self-governance. And while some may define democracy as self-governance, I disagree. The idea of self-governance is that the people are basically free to do as the want, as long as they do not interfere to greatly in the lives of others. I also said that the people of America are the overseers of this experiment. And like any good overseers, from time to time, we must stop and ask an important question. Just what is the status of the experiment? When I take a look around at the whole of America, my overall summation is 'not to good.' Judging from consistently reported polls, it would seem that my summation is generally shared.
But what then, is the source of the troubles? Why is it that so many things seem to be going wrong? While I have no doubts that there are a myriad of sources for the troubles, but there are some causes which have a much greater effect. I find there are two major ideas which not only cause some of the troubles we find ourself today, but they are also core misconceptions from which other sources of our troubles arise. I call them the Two Great Lies of American Politics. I will discuss the first here.
The First Great Lie of American Politics is that we, the people, have constitutional rights. I know that even thinking that can cause people to become worried. Don't we want to have constitutional rights? Isn't it these rights that protect us governmental abuse? Aren't these rights the very bedrock of our country and society?
As to these rights being the bedrock of our country and society, and our protection against government abuse, then yes, they are. But they are not constitutional. For a right to be constitutional, it must be given or created by the Constitution itself. No, our rights as people are not constitutional, they are inherent. The Declaration states that some truths are self-evident, and that 'All Men are Created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain, inalienable rights, which amongst these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness' (emphasis mine). The framers of the Constitution understood that the three rights mentioned in the Declaration were only the start. They knew this because they were there when the Declaration was written, and they knew for what they went to war.
Indeed, an inherent right is far more powerful than any mere constitutional right. When Jefferson penned the immortal words of the Declaration, he told us the source of our rights. When a right is given to us, endowed upon us at birth, then what agency of Man can contain it? By right can any government limit it? Force onto us any restrictions? There is the power of the inherent right. And this is why it is so important that we, as Americans, recognize the lie that is the people's constitutional rights. No, it is government that has constitutional rights. The rights of the government are created by the constitution, and are given over to it to ensure a free and just society.
It's not hard to find the proof of this concept. You don't even need to compare our Constitution to others in the world. You can compare it to itself and see the difference.
Consider the First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
And compare to the Sixteenth:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Or to the first clause of the Eighth Section of the First Article, respecting the powers of Congress:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Throughout the Constitution this language is used. When respecting a right of the people, that right is assumed to exist. Only rights given to the government are expressed as such. Only Congress 'shall' have a power. A right of the people 'shall not be infringed.' This difference is very strong, and it clearly shows that the rights of the people are inherent, and not constitutional.


Note:
Recently, reading a published article by Michael Medved, I learned that he is in the process of publishing a book titled 'The Ten Big Lies About America.' Despite the similarity in titles, I am not a listener of Medved's radio show. Any similarity is strictly coincidental.