"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot." - Mark Twain
In an all too frequent political discussion on Facebook, this time with Brian Gaddie, one of my unashamed far left liberal friends, he kindly pointed out that he appreciated Congressman Ron Paul's opposition to torture. This prompted a quick thought I've had about rights. And, really, a lot of this discussion must ultimately rest on the nature of our rights as sentient, self-aware beings who value life with each of us being the legitimate owners of our own selves who take positive action to support or enhance that life.
There is an excellent write up at The Objective Standard regarding the nature of rights that I highly recommend reading, especially since it offers up a theory that does not depend on the existence of God. This is important, because if God cannot be proven than your rights cannot be proven if you solely rest the existence of them on its existence.
But, back to the point. Certainly, nobody in the United States would support kidnapping someone off the street, failing to give them due process, failing to find them guilty in any kind of trial but instead just sticking them in a secret room and torturing them just in case they might know something useful. This would be such a vast violation of rights and the character of who are SUPPOSED to be as a nation.
But, it did prompt me to post my comment from Brian's thread on a broader topic of the nature of our rights and why I think the typical Conservative has an intellectual dilemma that they either must resolve by becoming more authoritarian and deciding that we only have the rights our respective governments grant to us OR that all human beings have rights that come about by way of our existence as sentient, self-aware beings.
Brian - regarding torture. Conservatives have an intellectual dilemma that they must resolve.
Most Conservatives would argue that our rights come from our creator (God, the creative force of the universe or whatever mechanism by which we are sentient, self-aware beings). This is clearly stated in the Declaration of Independence as a founding principle of our country. That we have rights (life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness) that nobody, not even government - except as compensation for a harm done to another - can take away.
BUT THEN, in the same breath, they would suggest that immigrants, accused terrorists or other people not born here don't have the same rights.
This is intellectually inconsistent. Either our rights come from the creator OR they come from government by nature of which borders we are unlucky enough to be born between.
They must decide. And I appreciate Ron Paul consistently showing intellectual honesty in all matters, including torture as I very much appreciate you pointing out.
Somebody sent me a message on Facebook today (feel free to look me up and friend me) asking what "Panarchy" was. Panarchy is an idea that I've become very interested in because it is a concept that provides for open competition between systems of government and taxation. As we all know, when there is no competition for a product that service may be lousy and the price can be high, where else are you going to go?
In the case of government, that is exactly how it is too, "Where else are you going to go?". There also seems to be a lot of confusion, mostly due to misuse of the word, in the media over what "anarchy" is. Below is a slightly edited copy of my very brief and hastily typed response to the Panarchy question and their concern they had about anything that sounds anarchistic.
Anarchy is just a state where each person lives free to interact voluntarily with all others. All things would be private including police and legal systems with open competition and mediation and private third party intermediaries and other mechanisms between them to ensure justice and the protection of each person's natural rights. Anarchy should NOT be confused with "chaos" or "violence" even though those in the media who do not understand the nuance in word selection may try to substitute one for the other. While anarchy may mean no government, it does not mean those functions are not performed or handled in other ways.
Panarchy is an idea that basically allows for open competition between government systems and you would voluntarily align yourself, perhaps contractually, with the one that suits your needs, preferences and values.
Most government systems are basically nothing more than a monopoly on violence, force and theft within the imaginary lines drawn on maps by men. Imagine if a government system you belonged to started charging too much for the services they provide, or started providing services you don't need so you voluntarily de-affiliate and become a citizen of a different system without having to relocate geographically. That way socialists can be (broke) socialists, communists can be communists and free market capitalists can be just that and the different groups need not bother each other with their polices. So long as basic natural and contractual rights and obligations are enforced each system could operate under a very small legal framework with each sub-system augmenting as necessary for their needs.
The overlying mechanism that would make this work and one that I think still makes me prefer panarchy or minarchy instead of anarchy is the idea of that basic legal framework for the protection of individual natural rights. Nobody, not even elected officials or their minions, would be allowed to steal or oppress people without them first having agreed to such by their voluntary association.
Hope this helps. It's an idea that needs more attention and the advent of technology probably makes it more plausible today. There are a lot of potential complications, for example, a company might have to be authorized to do business with citizens of each or any particular system and might be subject to different kinds of restrictions within each population group; but, this is no different than companies doing business in different countries or jurisdictions. Even state laws and regulations vary.
Even if not at the individual level, which is preferable, different cities or towns might opt-in to a specific system of governance. There are lots of things that would need to be examined, and certainly the idea of people or groups of people having those kinds of options scares the heck out of big government apologists of the status quo variety who lack imagination; but, otherwise, you're stuck unless you want to pick up and move, emigrate to another country, potentially lose your voting rights, unseat your family or your career.
Basically, getting rid of government having a monopoly. Competition, like in everything else, would ensure better service and lower prices (taxes are the price way for our government - we know what happens when there is no competition). I've not really considered this idea fully from a practical perspective; but, I think it warrants some thought. But, I caution that when coming up with roadblocks, objections or complications to stop and really think through whatever the issue is and ask, "hmmmm... how might that work in this kind of environment?", "what kind of cooperation between groups would be needed?" and "could it be any worse than what we have now?"
A lot of people are unaware that in 2007 a bill (S.1858) was passed by Congress that requires DNA samples of all newborn children to be sent to the Federal Government, warehoused, databased and tagged to note any genetic anomalies. This law does not require notification, much less consent, from the parents.
Every newborn child is now having samples of their DNA sent to the government for screening and indexing. The title of the bill was "Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act of 2007" but probably should have been titled "Stealing Your Kid'S DNA for Databasing and Tracking Without Telling You."
Beyond establishing a list of genetic conditions for which newborns would be tested, the bill also establishes guidelines for sharing test results nationwide, creating systems for surveillance and tracking of the status of anyone diagnosed at birth with any kind of defect, tracking genetic traits and defects within families and to subject people to genetic research without getting their consent or even having to inform them. The DNA is taken and then becomes the property of the government.
Now, I know a lot of people aren't really too concerned with what powers the Federal Government has granted to it by our Constitution, but I'm pretty sure nowhere in there does it authorize the quiet theft of our genetic material for purposes of research, tracking and whatever else they decide to do with it once they have it. And, of course, they always eventually choose to expand uses of information once collected. Besides all of that, isn't it a bit creepy to suddenly become, as World Net Daily suggested in 2008, a population of "guinea pigs."
For those who have some historical perspective on the 'eugenics' movement in the early 20th Century, you will be familiar with the name Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, who advocated eugenics as a way to eliminate traits from the population that were considered 'unfit'. In fact, a large part of this movement and the advocation of abortion to be more widely accepted had outright racial motives associated with one of the project names and who knows what she meant when she criticized, "the ever increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born."
This massive violation of everything from privacy to medical ethics was introduced by Senator Christopher Dodd [D-CT], ultimately passed by both houses of Congress and signed by President Bush on April 24, 2008. Yeah, let me say that again and note I didn't say "vetoed". SIGNED by President Bush into law. There were 21 co-sponsors and while you might expect Hillary Clinton [D-NY], Bernie Sanders [I-VT] or Ted Kennedy [D-MA] to be among them (they were) there were a few surprises. Those included embattled Minnesota Senator Norm Coleman [R] and Senator Richard Lugar [R-IN], Orrin Hatch [R-UT] and the recent stimulus bill sellout Susan Collins [R-ME]. These Senators didn't just vote for it, they CO-SPONSORED it.
And the story gets better. This bill was passed in the Senate by "unanimous consent". In other words, no recorded vote was taken. This is what cowardly legislators do on controversial bills when they don't want a record of how they voted to be used against them later. Sure enough, the House of Representatives did the same thing.
Hey isn't this great! You don't have to be accused of a crime to get your fingerprints taken, the government will already have your DNA. Convenient. And hey, somewhere in a lab somewhere they could be doing medical research ... ON YOU.
---
If you're wanting to keep up on news related to government encroachment of our freedoms or the continued erosion of our economy please consider visiting The Liberty File and visiting every day or subscribing to the RSS Feed!
(this started out going down one path and ended up letting me get a few things out of my system - it's basically a rant and it's probably not the last).
I take a lot of on-line polls. A lot of people do I think because our opinions are so darn important after all. One of the polls I took today was about Guns in St. Louis. And this question struck me as missing at least one important answer:
Which of the following conditions do you think is the most important cause of gun violence in the US?
The availability of guns The way children are raised The influence of TV, movies, video games, or the Internet Anger
Availability? Nah, even if outlawed people would own them in violation of the law. I mean, drug dealers still deal drugs, people still speed on the highway, cheat on their taxes, drive without a safety harness on, buy alcohol for underage drinkers.. all illegal. So we know that just making something illegal will not make it go away.
The way children are raised. While I'll admit this is probably a contributing factor, it's not the core reason I don't think. There will always be children that raised either improperly, or who just plain grow up to be bad seeds despite the best efforts of their loving, well educated parents.
The influence of TV, movies, video games or the Internet. Again, perhaps something else that influences people to some degree. But let's face it, watching Han Solo shoot Stormtroopers or Dirty Harry blow away bad guys did not turn me into some mass crazed killer. Congress destroying the financial soundness of our country or the Federal Tax Code might yet do it, but not popular culture.
Anger. Well, yeah, usually somebody got mad or at least had their ego bruised to shoot somebody. I love Chris Rock's skit about high priced bullets. The premise being that if you saw someone laying bleeding in the street you knew they made someone REALLY mad to make them put thousands of dollars of bullets in them. The answer that was immediately missing to me was drug prohibition. Now I know this can be an unpopular topic, and it's not one I tend to spend much time focusing on; BUT, how many people are shot, killed, beat up, intimidated or who knows what else over territorial distribution rights for drugs. High priced, profitable drugs because the government eliminates most legal, natural competition through legislation thus creating a risk-based profit incentive to get in the drug business? Remember Al Capone? You wouldn't even know that name if not for alcohol prohibition prior to repeal.
How much more harm is done by failed war on drugs than is done by the drugs themselves? Yes, drugs destroy families, careers, savings but so do the the IRS, DEA, ATF and other organizations from time to time. What would happen to the distribution network and the price of pot for example if it was no longer an illegal plant (a plant! if you're religious that would be a plant, placed here by God) that got destroyed on sight by officials of the government? The price would fall out of the bottom if everybody could just grow their own, don't you think? I mean, really, if they want to destroy plants I have some pesky dandilions every year they can pull up and burn - bet they won't stand so close to THAT fire though.
What about those frogs that people can lick to get high? Are government officials going to purposely hunt and destroy them out of existence? I'll bet the Endangered Species folks would have something to say about that. Where are the Endangered Plantlife folks? I guess trees are too big to fail but not smaller plantlife?
And I don't have a horse in that race, it all just seems silly, wasteful and ineffective to me.
So anyway, back to the polls. I especially get miffed when asked in a poll things like:
Who did you support for president? (o) Barack Obama (o) John McCain
... huh ... I didn't know I only had two options (I know most people thought so). I didn't support either of the media promoted, status quo, statist candidates who (neither one) knows jack about economics.
Of course, I'm still waiting for the news article that points out that if we'd listened to Ron Paul's economic advice years (if not decades) ago we probably could have avoided the big mess we're in now. Make fun of him all you want, he's been right about almost everything but he does lack that certain "American Idol" popularity contest attraction that we now hire our leaders based on. Instead of loud proclamations that, "oh, sorry, yeah he was right" they just have had him on the cable news channels a few times each week whereas BEFORE the election they wouldn't promote him at all.
For me, by the way, economics is probably the most important thing these guys need to understand, mostly so they know to stay out of the market and the economy since all they can do is screw it up, misallocate resources, create bubbles, destroy the value of currency or otherwise frustrate legitimate economic progress.
(AND NOW WE LEAVE THE TRACKS COMPLETELY)
What is it going to take to get everyone mad enough? I think there is a large but silent minority of people, afraid to do much "outside the box", if you will, that are mad as hell and don't want to take it anymore. Are you tired of the nonsense, overspending, trade deficits, wrecked economies, endless warfare (not one declared since World War II I don't think?)? Are you tired of your spouse having to work just to cover your tax liability, tired of having to earn $2.00 just to put $1.00 in the bank and then having the FED devalue that remaining dollar by 3 to 5% (or more) each year or tired of bickering about same-sex marriage or other issues that shouldn't have anything to do with the government, at least not Federally, while our country goes down the tubes. Are you fed up with politicians like Barnie Frank or John McCain standing up and saying "everything is okay" when in fact, things are totally NOT okay? What is it going to take? Do we sit idly by while the promise of America evaporates away from our Children (current our future)?
I think like many, I'm searching for the answers here as well. There is no place left on the planet for those who want to live free in a capitalist, free market society to go live. Heck, even this place wasn't really ours for the taking, but something has to change. As a friend of mine recently pointed out, BLOG posts and Internet jockey activities aren't going to get it done. I would add that writing books won't do it either and apparently producing DVDs doesn't do it. Do we need a prime-time special for two hours and all the networks? Wonder what that would cost?
The problem is we all have jobs, careers and two-income families. Can't quite put the plow up for the day and venture to D.C. for a few days to give Congress a piece of our mind without asking for time off, finding baby-sitters or who knows what else. Of course, if we wouldn't endlessly centralize stuff in D.C., in complete violation of our Constitution, we could make shorter trips down to our statehouses or county government centers to make our voices heard.
For starters, I invite everyone to visit and sign up for The Campaign for Liberty or to support Atlas!Liberty. I'm not sure what passes for pitchforks and torches these days, but I'm open to suggestions on that angle as well. First, though, in the immortal words of Howard Beale, if you're not already, "You've GOT TO GET MAD." And if you aren't going to get Mad then you're probably part of the problem and need to stay out of the way (and the voting booth). Go watch the scaled down version of I.O.U.S.A at YouTube, mad yet? $53 trillion reasons to be ... and counting.
