-
Tell me if I have this right, in theory.
We citizens, individuals, have rights. Our government has the power we give it. So govt can do only what we tell it do, but we can do whatever we want, so long as we respect the rights of others. This is simplistic, but I think it suffices to get my meaning across.
Therefore it would be silly to say, "The government has a right to do thus and so." Rather, the government has the duty and/or the power to do certain things, but can't be said to have a right to do anything.
Further, an individual or a group of individuals (like an evil corporation) has much more liberty to do as it wishes than a govt. I can carry any gun I want, however I want (in theory) while a soldier or police officer can carry only what is authorized. So, a cop has a duty or power to scrutinize my weapon-carrying if there is probable cause to believe I am acting illegally but I have a moral right to carry, while he is only acting on the instructions of a govt. Naturally, he has the same rights I do when he puts on civilian clothes.
How's that sound?
-
Close enough.
The problems tend to be from the emotions/character of those who either get into politics or work for government. The entire mindset sees government power as a "right" and sees ithe use of this power as being in the realm of "ought to do". That is, a view that they're supposed to create an orderly universe in which round pegs fit in round holes.
Lotsa people have sharp edges. This creates conflict.
That's why I keep talking about getting involved in politics, trying to help find candidates who have at least some idea of the little-ell libertarian view of the world and government. I'm talking about getting to know the local power structure people who work within all parties--not just the party you favor. It's pretty much pointless to bitch about ordinances or laws after they're passed.
And any agency in any level of government--whether administrative or enforcement--can always find people who are happy and willing to exercise government's force.
Art
-
... So govt can do only what we tell it (to) do, ...How's that sound?
That's what we citizens have been taught to believe.
Anyone with two eyes and a brain can see that it is we who are told what to do by the state.
OTOH, if a majority of citizens strongly objected to the current state, it couldn't exist. Obviously, most are quite happy with it - even here on APS.
-
What is the difference between a right and a power?
-
Good question, gentle sir.
I would say that a right is something inherent in the individual, which he must be allowed to exercise, while powers describe someone's capabilities, what he is capable of doing.
Rights are a moral concept, while power is more a matter of fact.
-
I think that in a governmental sense, a power is more of an authority given to a body, while a right is, as Fistful said, inherent as a condition of an individual's existence.
Right:
"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."
(Declaration of Independence)
Power:
"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."
(Constitution, Article 1)
So "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" are ours simply because we exist, while "all legislative Powers granted herein" belong to congress because we (through the Constitution) say they do.
Unfortunately, mercedesrules has a good point.
-
I would say that a right is something inherent in the individual, which he must be allowed to exercise, while powers describe someone's capabilities, what he is capable of doing.
Rights are a moral concept, while power is more a matter of fact.
What is the source of this "right"? When you say "must be allowed to exercise" do you mean at all times and in all situations?
I agree that rights are a moral concept.
We have had numerous discussions here over time on this. My position is that "rights" are simply what society says they are. There are no inherent rights in any person. No one has succesfully argued against this (my favorite from one poster here was "just trust me on this."). Most "arguments" take the ipse dixit form of "the Founders thought so." Yes they did. That doesnt make it correct.
-
When you say "must be allowed to exercise" do you mean at all times and in all situations?
You must be allowed to exercise your rights at any time and in any situation in which you have rights. To use the old stand-by, you have a right to shout "Fire!" while standing in a vacant lot, but you don't have a right to do so in the proverbial crowded theater. It's not that your right is denied or that your right is overridden by the concern for public safety. It is that you don't have such a right to begin with.
To use another old stand-by, you have a right to swing your arm when it only connects with air, with the wall of your house, or with the face of someone who is attacking you unjustly. However, the law prohibits punching an innocent person. Your rights aren't denied here, because you don't have a right to swing your arm where it will connect with my face.
I agree that rights are a moral concept....What is the source of this "right"?....We have had numerous discussions here over time on this. My position is that "rights" are simply what society says they are. There are no inherent rights in any person.
Very glad to discuss this. A few years ago, when pondering the subject, I decided it was wrong to attribute to God (at least the Christian God) the concept of human rights, when He hadn't mentioned it. Rights, I thought, are just a social convention we use to explain what free people ought to be allowed to do. On further reflection, though, I must conclude that this concept assumes a morality of whatever kind.
Rights must be inherent, though, or the concept is meaningless. I think what you are saying Rabbi, is that you don't believe in human rights, you believe in majority rule.
-
"All legislative Powers herein grantedshall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."
(Constitution, Article 1)
StickJockey, I agree. There is another emphasis which I also find interesting:
"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."
(Constitution, Article 1)
It seems to me that We the People created a very specific process for creating federal laws. All federal laws. This process is designed with some faily high hurdles--A law has to be passed by both the Senate and the House of Representatives, and be signed by the President, all of whom are elected officeholders.
This process by which we have the FCC, OSHA, EPA, and other alphabet-soup agencies creating laws (which they call "regulations", but the the jail cell is just as real if you violate their "regulations"), is clearly in violation of Article I, section 1.
Yes, I can hear the screams already: "But having a power means having the ability to delegate that power." But this is clearly not the case. There's that pesky word "All" again. "All" means "all". And when the Constitution intends for a power to be delegated, it says so. The power to delegate some of the powers of the Supreme Court to inferior courts is explicitly defined. The power of the President of the United States to delegate some of his powers to cabinet officers and military officers is also discussed. No such power is given to the Congress to delegate its lawmaking power to other entities.
Which is how it should be. As defined by the Constitution, the people have the right to review the actions of their Congressmen every two years, and vote out those who pass screwy laws. How long would a Congressman continue to have his job if he voted to take millions of acres out a cultivation to preserve a species of rats? To preserve a species of flies? He would be voted out at the very next election. But the EPA can do these things with impunity, because it is not answerable to the voters.
-
When you say "must be allowed to exercise" do you mean at all times and in all situations?
You must be allowed to exercise your rights at any time and in any situation in which you have rights. To use the old stand-by, you have a right to shout "Fire!" while standing in a vacant lot, but you don't have a right to do so in the proverbial crowded theater. It's not that your right is denied or that your right is overridden by the concern for public safety. It is that you don't have such a right to begin with.
To use another old stand-by, you have a right to swing your arm when it only connects with air, with the wall of your house, or with the face of someone who is attacking you unjustly. However, the law prohibits punching an innocent person. Your rights aren't denied here, because you don't have a right to swing your arm where it will connect with my face.
I agree that rights are a moral concept....What is the source of this "right"?....We have had numerous discussions here over time on this. My position is that "rights" are simply what society says they are. There are no inherent rights in any person.
Very glad to discuss this. A few years ago, when pondering the subject, I decided it was wrong to attribute to God (at least the Christian God) the concept of human rights, when He hadn't mentioned it. Rights, I thought, are just a social convention we use to explain what free people ought to be allowed to do. On further reflection, though, I must conclude that this concept assumes a morality of whatever kind.
Rights must be inherent, though, or the concept is meaningless. I think what you are saying Rabbi, is that you don't believe in human rights, you believe in majority rule.
You are right: I do not believe in rights as some amorphous ill-defined things that spring from some quasi-mystical source. I believe rights are things generally agreed on by society to be so. This seems obvious.
-
"All legislative Powers herein grantedshall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."
(Constitution, Article 1)
StickJockey, I agree. There is another emphasis which I also find interesting:
"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."
(Constitution, Article 1)
It seems to me that We the People created a very specific process for creating federal laws.
All federal laws. This process is designed with some faily high hurdles--A law has to be passed by both the Senate
and the House of Representatives,
and be signed by the President, all of whom are elected officeholders.
This process by which we have the FCC, OSHA, EPA, and other alphabet-soup agencies creating laws (which they call "regulations", but the the jail cell is just as real if you violate their "regulations"), is
clearly in violation of Article I, section 1.
All of the alphabet agencies operate under an initial enabling legislation and are ultimately answerable to whatever branch they operate under (usually the Executive). This has been the case since the founding.
-
One of my better teachers in college told me that when someone writes "obviously" or "clearly" he is on shaky ground.
I believe rights are things generally agreed on by society to be so. This seems obvious.
-
Are you trying to make a point here?
-
You made it.
-
OK, so the answer is "no." Thanks for clearing it up.
-
One of my better teachers in college told me that when someone writes "obviously" or "clearly" he is on shaky ground.
I believe rights are things generally agreed on by society to be so. This seems obvious.
-
All rights in my opinion stem from the right to life. Property rights, gun ownership, religion, etc. are just logical extensions of this. These rights are of course individual, since doing anything through forced collectivity infringes on some degree or another to another person's right to life. I don't think there is anyone in the entire world, besides sociopaths, that would argue that people do not have the right to live.
-
Yet by advocating collectivism, that is exactly what many are arguing for. They don't want to take your whole life, just pieces of it.
-
Tell me if I have this right, in theory.
We citizens, individuals, have rights. Our government has the power we give it. So govt can do only what we tell it do, but we can do whatever we want, so long as we respect the rights of others. This is simplistic, but I think it suffices to get my meaning across.
Therefore it would be silly to say, "The government has a right to do thus and so." Rather, the government has the duty and/or the power to do certain things, but can't be said to have a right to do anything.
Further, an individual or a group of individuals (like an evil corporation) has much more liberty to do as it wishes than a govt. I can carry any gun I want, however I want (in theory) while a soldier or police officer can carry only what is authorized. So, a cop has a duty or power to scrutinize my weapon-carrying if there is probable cause to believe I am acting illegally but I have a moral right to carry, while he is only acting on the instructions of a govt. Naturally, he has the same rights I do when he puts on civilian clothes.
How's that sound?
In theory you've got the role of government down pat. Really - I am not being sarcastic.
The reality, however, is somewhat different.
If one really believes that any contemporary world government today derives its power from its citizens or that those same governments are not power devouring, vampiric, controlling, and self serving multilithic organizations then I want some of the DRUGS you believers are doing. It must be nice to live in a world with pink skies and blue bunnies.
-
This seems like a distinction without a difference. Especially since the areas where one does not have rights (on your theory) are not spelled out and change.
You could not be more wrong. There is a world of difference between a denial of rights and a lack of rights. Would you prefer that I phrase it as "My right to life supersedes your right to yell fire in the crowded theater."? This seems very messy to me. But how do these rights change? You never have a right to speak if that speech presents a clear, immanent, physical danger to an innocent person. Nor do you ever have a right to punch if your fists will land in the face of the innocent. And if you want everything spelled out, then I guess you are a big fan of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, or whatever it's called.
I do not believe in rights as some amorphous ill-defined things that spring from some quasi-mystical source. I believe rights are things generally agreed on by society to be so. This seems obvious.
I wouldn't say the Christian beliefs of the founding generation were quasi-mystical, so I'm not sure what you're talking about there. "Generally agreed on" seems correct, but these rights must be seen as being inherent, not something that can change with public opinion. The very value of rights is that they remain fixed, once agreed upon. I have a book by a fellow named Felix Morley, who made the observation that the Bill of Rights is anti-democratic, in that it restricts the will of the people. The people may want to eliminate all Muslims from America, but the Bill of Rights presents a barrier that at least forces them to argue against religious toleration. These protections can be overcome, of course.
I am probably not taking the time to write as clearly as I ought and witht the proper structure. I apologize, but I spend too much time on the net as it is.
-
I do not believe in rights as some amorphous ill-defined things that spring from some quasi-mystical source. I believe rights are things generally agreed on by society to be so. This seems obvious.
I wouldn't say the Christian beliefs of the founding generation were quasi-mystical, so I'm not sure what you're talking about there. "Generally agreed on" seems correct, but these rights must be seen as being inherent, not something that can change with public opinion. The very value of rights is that they remain fixed, once agreed upon. I have a book by a fellow named Felix Morley, who made the observation that the Bill of Rights is anti-democratic, in that it restricts the will of the people. The people may want to eliminate all Muslims from America, but the Bill of Rights presents a barrier that at least forces them to argue against religious toleration. These protections can be overcome, of course.
I am probably not taking the time to write as clearly as I ought and witht the proper structure. I apologize, but I spend too much time on the net as it is.
But rights do change with public opinion. Do you have a right to privacy? You do since the Griswold decision but not before that. Many states had laws against miscegenation and no one thought people's rights were being infringed until courts began striking them down in the 1950s. Libel standards were very different 100 years ago. I could go on and on. Yes there are some constants provided by the BOR but the way that is read has changed historically.
-
I like to think of rights as created by implication, contract, promise or agreement. I offer the right of "freedom from my interference in your life, liberty and property" to all. If they reciprocate, fine. If they don't, I retract my offer.
For instance, if someone doesn't interfere with my gun ownership, I respect theirs. If they would try to interfere with my gun ownership, I assume they accept my interference with their similar right.
In practice, I am hesitant to take that person's gun...but it would be justified. One can't justly claim a "right" for oneself that one does not extend to others.
-
Yet by advocating collectivism, that is exactly what many are arguing for. They don't want to take your whole life, just pieces of it.
Very true. The problem is though, that some manner of "collectivism" is necessary for society to function. Voluntary is of course the good kind, involuntary the bad. Unfortunately for those who are self-driven, upright sort of people, history has shown us that there isn't any society that doesn't impose its will on people in some way or another.
-
One of my better teachers in college told me that when someone writes "obviously" or "clearly" he is on shaky ground.
I believe rights are things generally agreed on by society to be so. This seems obvious.
Petard
-
Power ultimately only respects greater power.
Our Founding Fathers (FF) recognized this part of human nature and tried to craft a gov't that had two major checks and one minor check.
The minor check is what we know of as "checks & balances" in the COTUS. It is decentralization of power into the three branches of gov't. Competition between the three is key, here.
The first major check was the invokation of a higher being (Creator) that grants right to citizens. By implication, those who use power will answer for their actions in the afterlife, if not on earth. This check has been eroded by the secularization of American society and especially by the rise of the secular progessives in gov't, media, and academia. Undermining faith has the unintended consequence of undermining our liberties.
The second major check was the armed citizenry. If the person wielding the power of the state does not fear punishment in the afterlife, perhaps the prospect of having punishment meted out by fellow citizens would do the trick. Gun control advocates and the usurpation of this power by fed.gov has brought nearer the necessity to use our arms. Generally, where gun control is strong, liberties are weak, since the ruling class has less to fear.
-
They are "mystical" in the sense that there is no proof what they are, much less that they exist at all. They are simply "endowed by our Creator" by some unspecified process.
As I'm sure you're aware, the Old and New Testaments have been used to support and/or attack just about every concept known to the Western World, such as slavery, the Crusades, the celibacy of priests, war in general and wars in particular. So I would guess that these rights have been "proven" from those grounds in more than one musty old book. I know I have a little pamphlet around here somewhere that proves RKBA from the Bible. Probably more influential in the context of the Founding, though, was English common law, which spells them out specifically. The "endowment," however, is nothing more than man's creation in the image of God and the moral sense granted to humankind. I don't see what's mystical about any of that.
Of course, I doubt the modern, Anglo-American concept of rights is really expressed in the Bible, although some translations use the word. However, I think rights are a convention that expresses religious concepts. That is, you have a right not to be murdered, stolen from, etc.
But rights do change with public opinion. Do you have a right to privacy? You do since the Griswold decision but not before that. Many states had laws against miscegenation and no one thought people's rights were being infringed until courts began striking them down in the 1950s. Libel standards were very different 100 years ago. I could go on and on. Yes there are some constants provided by the BOR but the way that is read has changed historically.
Of course our laws and our ideas about human rights change, but what seperates rights from laws is that the law is an ever-changing system designed to express the unchanging rights held by all. If you go along with the idea that our rights can change, you make them worthless.
-
But rights do change with public opinion. Do you have a right to privacy? You do since the Griswold decision but not before that. Many states had laws against miscegenation and no one thought people's rights were being infringed until courts began striking them down in the 1950s. Libel standards were very different 100 years ago. I could go on and on. Yes there are some constants provided by the BOR but the way that is read has changed historically.
Of course our laws and our ideas about human rights change, but what seperates rights from laws is that the law is an ever-changing system designed to express the unchanging rights held by all. If you go along with the idea that our rights can change, you make them worthless.
-
Rabbi, you seem to be talking about rights as if they were dependent on laws and court judgements. As if the only rights I have are the ones that are recognized. Why would I need to talk about rights then? I could simply say the law allows this and the law demands that. But to argue that the law should let me do this or shouldprohibit you from doing that implies a higher moral authority than the letter of the law or the opinion of the majority - a standard to which the law must measure up. That is the value of the concept of rights which are inherent to the human being and are the same across all times and places, regardless of public opinion, majority rule or law. I think there is a better word for what you are calling rights, but I'm not sure what it would be.
Update: You misspelled your sig line, Rabbi.
-
As a practical matter the only rights anyone has are those granted by the government. One can quible, wax philosophic, talk about god and on and on and on until the cock crows but it won't matter one little bit or as Mr. Spock said a miniscule bit.\
A right forbidden isn't a right it's a theory. As another pointed out when paraphrasing Mao - all power emintates from the barrel of a gun. Enough guns can turn the theory into reality. Until folks who are right deprived pick up their guns their time would probably be better spent engaging in the physical exercise designed to result in babies, drinking beer and shootin' the breeze with their buds than wasting a lot of time and oxygen talking about rights they only dream they could exercise.
-
Only half-right, Werewolf. Rights are a theory, and we all have the same rights whether they are respected or not. The point is that our rights are a guide for legislation.
-
No, Werewolf has it right. Rights are the result of positive action on someone's part. Rights are the result of court actions and laws, when those are enacted in view to the Constitution. Again, you have a right of privacy because of Griswold, not because there is some amorphous Creator-given right to privacy out there.
-
The endowment per the Constitution: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Any law that flows from these three endowments is unailianable. Where those rights come from are, contrary to some opinion here, Creator endowed as per the words of the architects of the document and the ratifiers of same. It is what it says. Our form of government recognizes certain givens. Those three are the givens. They are given by the Creator. Whether you recognize, yourself, the existance of a Creator is of no consequence. You live as a result of His munifisance and is so stated and ratified by the founders and citizens of the day. Actually one doesn't need to know or understand from where rights come. One only has to accept them and then participate in that which ratifies them.
The whole architecture of the Constitution is formed around those three endowments if you think about it. They are why we are a society of laws not men.
Men are subject to whim, fancy and mob rule. The law is to singular in its treatment of everyone.
If you doubt that, ponder for a moment how men have tried and succeeded in manipulating the law to serve their whim, fancy and mob rule. That is why, as a society, we need to be imparting to our youth the importance of teaching, after they are taught the ability to read, how to understand our form and architecture of self rule. Government and history ought to be the two prime subjects after reading. The rest is meaningless unless we remain free.
At this point we have allowed the law to be manipulated to give ascendence to self and selfish interests above the common good. Witness the pettifoggery of our two party system. Certain powers within those parties have elevated the ascendency of politics and power over the common good. Listen to what they say and watch what they do. That is why our education system is so important. Our posterity needs to begin to understand again that the common good is Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, The meaning of those words needs to be understood in order that we keep what we have been granted. "We gave you a republic, madam, if you can keep it."
e Pluribus Unum. Out of the many, one. This speaks to nationhood, the common good, not pure individualism.
Just my .02 cents.
-
Strategic Forecasting (www.stratfor.com) put out an interesting e-mail discussion paper on this today.
GEOPOLITICAL INTELLIGENCE REPORT 05.16.2006
Civil Liberties and National Security
By George Friedman
USA Today published a story last week stating that U.S. telephone companies (Qwest excepted) had been handing over to the National Security Agency (NSA) logs of phone calls made by American citizens. This has, as one might expect, generated a fair bit of controversy -- with opinions ranging from "It's not only legal but a great idea" to "This proves that Bush arranged 9/11 so he could create a police state." A fine time is being had by all. Therefore, it would seem appropriate to pause and consider the matter.
Let's begin with an obvious question: How in God's name did USA Today find out about a program that had to have been among the most closely held secrets in the intelligence community -- not only because it would be embarrassing if discovered, but also because the entire program could work only if no one knew it was under way? No criticism of USA Today, but we would assume that the newspaper wasn't running covert operations against the NSA. Therefore, someone gave them the story, and whoever gave them the story had to be cleared to know about it. That means that someone with a high security clearance leaked an NSA secret.
Americans have become so numbed to leaks at this point that no one really has discussed the implications of what we are seeing: The intelligence community is hemorrhaging classified information. It's possible that this leak came from one of the few congressmen or senators or staffers on oversight committees who had been briefed on this material -- but either way, we are seeing an extraordinary breakdown among those with access to classified material.
The reason for this latest disclosure is obviously the nomination of Gen. Michael Hayden to be the head of the CIA. Before his appointment as deputy director of national intelligence, Hayden had been the head of the NSA, where he oversaw the collection and data-mining project involving private phone calls. Hayden's nomination to the CIA has come under heavy criticism from Democrats and Republicans, who argue that he is an inappropriate choice for director. The release of the data-mining story to USA Today obviously was intended as a means of shooting down his nomination -- which it might. But what is important here is not the fate of Hayden, but the fact that the Bush administration clearly has lost all control of the intelligence community -- extended to include congressional oversight processes. That is not a trivial point.
At the heart of the argument is not the current breakdown in Washington, but the more significant question of why the NSA was running such a collection program and whether the program represented a serious threat to liberty. The standard debate is divided into two schools: those who regard the threat to liberty as trivial when compared to the security it provides, and those who regard the security it provides as trivial when compared to the threat to liberty. In this, each side is being dishonest. The real answer, we believe, is that the program does substantially improve security, and that it is a clear threat to liberty. People talk about hard choices all the time; with this program, Americans actually are facing one.
A Problem of Governments
Let's begin with the liberty question. There is no way that a government program designed to track phone calls made by Americans is not a threat to liberty. We are not lawyers, and we are sure a good lawyer could make the argument either way. But whatever the law says, liberty means "my right to do what I want, within the law and due process, without the government having any knowledge of it." This program violates that concept.
The core problem is that it is never clear what the government will do with the data it collects.
Consider two examples, involving two presidential administrations.
In 1970, Congress passed legislation called the Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act that was designed explicitly to break organized crime groups. The special legislation was needed because organized crime groups were skilled at making more conventional prosecutions difficult. The Clinton administration used the RICO Act against anti-abortion activists. From a legal point of view, this was effective, but no one had ever envisioned the law being used this way when it was drafted. The government was taking the law to a place where its framers had never intended it to go.
Following 9/11, Congress passed a range of anti-terrorism laws that included the PATRIOT Act. The purpose of this was to stop al Qaeda, an organization that had killed thousands of people and was thought to be capable of plotting a nuclear attack. Under the same laws, the Bush administration has been monitoring a range of American left-wing groups -- some of which well might have committed acts of violence, but none of which come close to posing the same level of threat as al Qaeda. In some technical sense, using anti-terrorism laws against animal-rights activists might be legitimate, but the framers of the law did not envision this extension.
What we are describing here is neither a Democratic nor a Republican disease. It is a problem of governments. They are not particularly trustworthy in the way they use laws or programs. More precisely, an extraordinary act is passed to give the government the powers to fight an extraordinary enemy -- in these examples, the Mafia or al Qaeda. But governments will tend to extend this authority and apply it to ordinary events. How long, then, before the justification for tracking telephone calls is extended to finding child molesters, deadbeat dads and stolen car rings?
It is not that these things shouldn't be stopped. Rather, the issue is that Americans have decided that such crimes must be stopped within a rigorous system of due process. The United States was founded on the premise that governments can be as dangerous as criminals. The entire premise of the American system is that governments are necessary evils and that their powers must be circumscribed. Americans accept that some criminals will go free, but they still limit the authority of the state to intrude in their lives. There is a belief that if you give government an inch, it will take a mile -- all in the name of the public interest.
Now flip the analysis. Americans can live with child molesters, deadbeat dads and stolen car rings more readily than they can live with the dangers inherent in government power. But can one live with the threat from al Qaeda more readily than that from government power? That is the crucial question that must be answered. Does al Qaeda pose a threat that (a) cannot be managed within the structure of normal due process and (b) is so enormous that it requires an extension of government power? In the long run, is increased government power more or less dangerous than al Qaeda?
Due Process and Security Risks
We don't mean to be ironic when we say this is a tough call. If all that al Qaeda can do was what they achieved on 9/11, we might be tempted to say that society could live more readily with that threat than with the threat of government oppression. But there is no reason to believe that the totality of al Qaeda's capabilities and that of its spin-off groups was encapsulated in the 9/11 attacks. The possibility that al Qaeda might acquire and use weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear devices, cannot be completely dismissed. There is no question but that the organization would use such weapons if they could. The possibility of several American cities being devastated by nuclear attacks is conceivable -- and if there is only one chance in 100 of such an event, that is too much. The fact is that no one knows what the probabilities are.
Some of those who write to Stratfor argue that the Bush administration carried out the 9/11 attacks to justify increasing its power. But if the administration was powerful enough to carry out 9/11 without anyone finding out, then it hardly seems likely that it needed a justification for oppression. It could just oppress. The fact is that al Qaeda (which claims the attacks) carried out the attacks, and that attacks by other groups are possible. They might be nuclear attacks -- and stopping those is a social and moral imperative that might not be possible without a curtailment of liberty.
On both sides of the issue, it seems to us, there has developed a fundamental dishonesty. Civil libertarians demand that due process be respected in all instances, but without admitting openly the catastrophic risks they are willing to incur. Patrick Henry's famous statement, "Give me liberty or give me death," is a fundamental premise of American society. Civil libertarians demand liberty, but they deny that by doing so they are raising the possibility of death. They move past the tough part real fast.
The administration argues that government can be trusted with additional power. But one of the premises of American conservatism is that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Conservatives believe that the state -- and particularly the federal government -- should never be trusted with power. Conservatives believe in "original sin," meaning they believe that any ruler not only is capable of corruption, but likely to be corrupted by power. The entire purpose of the American regime is to protect citizens from a state that is, by definition, untrustworthy. The Bush administration moves past this tough part real fast as well.
Tough Discussions
It is important to consider what the NSA's phone call monitoring program was intended to do. Al Qaeda's great skill has been using a very small number of men, allowing them to blend into a targeted country, and then suddenly bringing them together for an attack. Al Qaeda's command cell has always been difficult to penetrate; it consists of men who are related or who have known each other for years. They do not recruit new members into the original structure. Penetrating the organization is difficult. Moreover, the command cell may not know details of any particular operation in the field.
Human intelligence, in order to be effective, must be focused. As we say at Stratfor, we need a name, a picture and an address for the person who is likely to know the answer to an intelligence question. For al Qaeda's operations in the United States, we do not have any of this. The purpose of the data-mining program simply would have been to identify possible names and addresses so that a picture could be pieced together and an intelligence operation mounted. The program was designed to identify complex patterns of phone calls and link the information to things already known from other sources, in order to locate possible al Qaeda networks.
In order to avoid violating civil liberties, a warrant for monitoring phone calls would be needed. It is impossible to get a warrant for such a project, however, unless you want to get a warrant for every American. The purpose of a warrant is to investigate a known suspect. In this case, the government had no known suspect. Identifying a suspect is exactly what this was about. The NSA was looking for 10 or 20 needles in a haystack of almost 300 million. The data-mining program would not be a particularly effective program by itself -- it undoubtedly would have thrown out more false positives than anyone could follow up on. But in a conflict in which there are no good tools, this was a tool that had some utility. For all we know, a cell might have been located, or the program might never have been more than a waste of time.
The problem that critics of the program must address is simply this: If data mining of phone calls is objectionable, how would they suggest identifying al Qaeda operatives in the United States? We're open to suggestions. The problem that defenders of the program have is that they expect to be trusted to use the data wisely, and to discipline themselves not to use it in pursuit of embezzlers, pornographers or people who disagree with the president. We'd love to be convinced.
Contrary to what many people say, this is not an unprecedented situation in American history. During the Civil War -- another war that was unique and that was waged on American soil -- the North was torn by dissent. Pro-Confederate sentiment ran deep in the border states that remained within the Union, as well as in other states. The federal government, under Lincoln, suspended many liberties. Lincoln went far beyond Bush -- suspending the writ of habeas corpus, imposing martial law and so on. His legal basis for doing so was limited, but in his judgment, the survival of the United States required it.
Obviously, George W. Bush is no Lincoln. Of course, it must be remembered that during the Civil War, no one realized that Abraham Lincoln was a Lincoln. A lot of people in the North thought he was a Bush. Indeed, had the plans of some of his Cabinet members -- particularly his secretary of war -- gone forward after his assassination, Lincoln's suspension of civil rights would be remembered even less than it is now.
The trade-off between liberty and security must be debated. The question of how you judge when a national emergency has passed must be debated. The current discussion of NSA data mining provides a perfect arena for that discussion. We do not have a clear answer of how the debate should come out. Indeed, our view is that the outcome of the debate is less important than that the discussion be held and that a national consensus emerge. Americans can live with a lot of different outcomes. They cannot live with the current intellectual and political chaos.
Civil libertarians must not be allowed to get away with trivializing the physical danger that they are courting by insisting that the rules of due process be followed. Supporters of the administration must not be allowed to get away with trivializing the threat to liberty that prosecution of the war against al Qaeda entails. No consensus can possibly emerge when both sides of the debate are dishonest with each other and themselves.
This is a case in which the outcome of the debate will determine the course of the war. Leaks of information about secret projects to a newspaper is a symptom of the disease: a complete collapse of any consensus as to what this war is, what it means, what it risks, what it will cost and what price Americans are not willing to pay for it. A covert war cannot be won without disciplined covert operations. That is no longer possible in this environment. A serious consensus on the rules is now a national security requirement.
-
Rights are the result of court actions and laws, when those are enacted in view to the Constitution. Again, you have a right of privacy because of Griswold, not because there is some amorphous Creator-given right to privacy out there.
Rabbi, for crying out loud, get another word to describe these "rights." You are not talking about rights, you are talking about what the law will let me do. It is an entirely different concept.
Let me put it this way. Whatever you think the law should be, whatever you think it should allow you to do? Those are your rights. Not what the law actually allows you, but what it ought to.
-
Rights are the result of court actions and laws, when those are enacted in view to the Constitution. Again, you have a right of privacy because of Griswold, not because there is some amorphous Creator-given right to privacy out there.
Rabbi, for crying out loud, get another word to describe these "rights." You are not talking about rights, you are talking about what the law will let me do. It is an entirely different concept.
Let me put it this way. Whatever you think the law should be, whatever you think it should allow you to do? Those are your rights. Not what the law actually allows you, but what it ought to.
A right is something which is basic to society and is usually granted by a founding document (like the Constitution) or by tradition (Common Law). Individual laws and rulings may interpret them to a point. Sometimes they are interpreted out of existence, as we see with the 2A and attempts to do just that. And this is exactly my point: rights need to have a lobby to be secure. First Amendment rights of freedom of the press expande drastically as news media expanded. 2A rights are shrinking as the number of shooters shrinks.
-
I think the law ought to allow me to sit around and drink beer all day and not have to work for it. But I would hardly call that a right.
I would. You do not have a right to demand that someone provide you with beer, but you do have a right to sit around and drink it as much as you want.
If by "and not have to work for it," you meant someone gives you the beer, then of course you're correct, it isn't a right.
-
I think the law ought to allow me to sit around and drink beer all day and not have to work for it. But I would hardly call that a right.
I would. You do not have a right to demand that someone provide you with beer, but you do have a right to sit around and drink it as much as you want.
If by "and not have to work for it," you meant someone gives you the beer, then of course you're correct, it isn't a right.
-
Rabbi, for crying out loud, get another word to describe these "rights." You are not talking about rights, you are talking about what the law will let me do. It is an entirely different concept.
Technically speaking I tend to agree.
Practically speaking NO! A right to air in a vacuum does you no good - you're still DEAD.
The same applies to whatever one wishes to call rights. if you cannot exercise them then you don't have them. Maybe you ought'a have them but so what ought'a and reality are way far apart. Wax philosophical all you want, play word games, claim subtle semantic differences but when push comes to shove if the gooberment don't allow ya to do it then the end result of not being able to do it and not having the right are one and the same.
Coulda, shouda, wuda.
If your aunt had balls she'd be your uncle.
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin and as you so correctly pointed out, "...a right is only what the law will let you do". Any other definition is a waste of bandwidth on the internet, ink on paper and oxygen if stated out loud (though the discussion thereof can be quite entertaining - so maybe it's not such a waste afterall).
Geeeez! Why oh why is that so hard for some otherwise highly intelligent people to understand.
-
Werewolf, we are really talking past each other here. I didn't say that somehow you magically get to carry a loaded machine gun to the mall, just because you think you have that right. What I am saying is that you ought to be allowed to carry it, and that is all a right is - a statement of what you ought to be allowed to do. That is why we have a concept of rights, rather than just a concept of law, which apparently is all you have. Laws can change, but rights are an absolute principle that remains.
The concept itself is important. By itself, it doesn't give you a blessed thing. The point is to have one's rights recognized and respected, which is why we must agree on a set of rights and codify them.
-
Laws can change, but rights are an absolute principle that remains.
And there in lies the crux of the matter.
Some folk believe that rights are absolute and whether can exercise them or not is essentially irrelevant - one still has the right.
Others believe that a right not exercisable is no right at all.
It is all a matter of definition I guess and I for one would like us to agree on an acceptable one though to be honest I don't see that happening.
To me my definition is grounded in reality. If you can't do it then you don't have the right. The ought'a be definition has no grounding in anything other than philosophy. Which is more important? Beats the hell out of me since as many nations have fallen and been built on matters of philosophy as have been born and destroyed for reasons of practicality.
Personally though I'd rather have a real hamburger in hand than one I could only imagine because the powers that be have forbidden them. The real one would be a lot more nutritious I'd imagine.
-
Ah, but here is the fun in a "free" society. That "burger" which the law forbids can still be tasted by assuming a little extra risk. To me, that is what freedom is all about; risk taking. The law, and I agree that a society of laws is good for it strikes parameters, can be disobeyed from time to time. The rub is to evaluate the risk against the benefit of breaking the law. We all do it all the time. Sometimes without even thinking about it.
-
Ah, but here is the fun in a "free" society. That "burger" which the law forbids can still be tasted by assuming a little extra risk. To me, that is what freedom is all about; risk taking. The law, and I agree that a society of laws is good for it strikes parameters, can be disobeyed from time to time. The rub is to evaluate the risk against the benefit of breaking the law. We all do it all the time. Sometimes without even thinking about it.
Grampster, you may seriously want to re-evaluate that. Can anyone say that disrespect for the law is a good and desirable thing in itself? It happens when laws are bad but that is an indicator and warning to change laws. I would rather live in a society with good laws that I obey than be a criminal.
-
Some folk believe that rights are absolute and whether can exercise them or not is essentially irrelevant - one still has the right.
The ought'a be definition has no grounding in anything other than philosophy. Which is more important?
Irrelevant? Not at all. No rights would be respected were it not for the belief that such rights existed. What we believe is obviously more important that the circumstances, because we react to the circumstances, change the circumstances, and even set up the circumstances according to our philosophy.
-
Rabbi,
We've been a nation for over 200 years. During that time our trinity of government has been writing, passing, ratifying and interpreting laws. How many rooms would the books of all of the laws from the Federal to the lowest township fill? I in no way disrespect the law. My comment included the statement that laws are good as they set boundaries. They are also not to favor individuals; but we know that is not the case in reality. Government's power is limited to one: the power to say no! I don't like to live my life by being subserviant to the word no! I submit that being free, and the fact that we are sentient, requires judgement. In making those judgements there comes risk. Risk is the aphrodisiac of freedom. That means yes!
I once knew a fellow who has and is spending the major part of his life in prison. He did 2 stretches for cocaine distribution and he's now sitting there because he scammed a bunch of people and several banks out of multiple millions of dollars.
I had asked him once why he chose the course he had because he was bright, affable, focused and would have been very successful in business had he chose to be legit.
He said he was the way he was because of the thrill of it. He was a free man who chose to ignore the law and gave up his freedom. He made a choice to be free to do what he did and in the end lost his freedom. I wonder if he would take another path if he could start over. Somehow, I think not.
That is one end of the spectrum.
The other is driving 40 mph in a 35 mph zone. Or not paying the Township it's permit fee of $250.00 when you want to move an electrical outlet in your house; you just move it. Or digging up a sapling in the national forest to plant in your yard. We break the law every day, knowingly and unknowingly.
Because I know this and I do it anyway is not disrespecting the law, it's actually having an appreciation for it on the one hand because it helps make us an orderly society (and I fully appreciate that) and we are afforded a degree of comfort in that. As a free man I can ignore some of them because I am free to do so. I also understand in so doing there may be a price to pay. Fair exchange in my view.
I also exercise self control because I have absorbed knowledge from parents, peers and the education system of life. We all have an equal opportunity in that regard. How we uses the freedom we have is about choices and the ramifications of those choices. The law is good, but freedom is better.
-
... I don't like to live my life by being subserviant to the word no! I submit that being free, and the fact that we are sentient, requires judgement. In making those judgements there comes risk. Risk is the aphrodisiac of freedom. That means yes!..
I agree. In ways you are as much of an anarchist as I.
I see a difference between laws and legislation. If you and I promise not to interfere in each other's life, liberty and property, that would be our little "law". If I violate it, then you could, also.
But when a legislative body scribbles, "Soldiers and police can lie, possess morphine and have machineguns but non-police/soldiers cannot.", I have a problem and put it in a different category.
Joe Sobran points out that there are sometimes two words for the same action depending on whether the state or citizens perform it.
Carjacking...impoundment?
Mass murder...national defense.
Extortion...taxation.
Counterfeiting...inflation.
-
Mercedes,
I have often pondered whether their was much difference (morally and ethically) between the Mafia and Government. ("Nothing personal, just business.")
I've also thought about big business vs government. They both try and manipulate you into dealing with them in pursuit of your money. But one can be avoided and the other demands your business at the point of a gun.
But, as a person who is and has been part of government, I understand if one's motives are carefully considered often, government can bring a modicum of order with a minimum of sacrifice. Problem is, it doesn't usually work out that way.
My connection with government is very local; township, fire department, lake management, utility management and county works. My goal has always been what is the best bang for everyone's buck.
-
Joe Sobran points out that there are sometimes two words for the same action depending on whether the state or citizens perform it.
Carjacking...impoundment?
Mass murder...national defense.
Extortion...taxation.
Counterfeiting...inflation.
And there is a reason for that. Despite outward appearances, they are completely different. English has two different words for animals, depending on whether they are on the hoof or on the plate. So what?
-
Mercedes,
I have often pondered whether their was much difference (morally and ethically) between the Mafia and Government. ("Nothing personal, just business.")
Virtually none; only peoples' perception of legitimacy.
I've also thought about big business vs government. They both try and manipulate you into dealing with them in pursuit of your money. But one can be avoided and the other demands your business at the point of a gun.
The entire philosophy behind market anarchism.
But, as a person who is and has been part of government, I understand if one's motives are carefully considered often, government can bring a modicum of order with a minimum of sacrifice. Problem is, it doesn't usually work out that way.
Too true. What is your motive for working for the state (government entity)?
My connection with government is very local; township, fire department, lake management, utility management and county works. My goal has always been what is the best bang for everyone's buck.
That's not very specific. Does every single resident benefit equally from your efforts or do some benefit while others are harmed?
-
Joe Sobran points out that there are sometimes two words for the same action depending on whether the state or citizens perform it.
Carjacking...impoundment?
Mass murder...national defense.
Extortion...taxation.
Counterfeiting...inflation.
And there is a reason for that. Despite outward appearances, they are completely different. ...
For instance, in a "carjacking", some armed thugs take your car while in an "impounding", some armed thugs take your car.
In a "mass murder", some guy kills some innocent people while in "national defense", some guys kill some innocent people.
See?
-
Joe Sobran points out that there are sometimes two words for the same action depending on whether the state or citizens perform it.
Carjacking...impoundment?
Mass murder...national defense.
Extortion...taxation.
Counterfeiting...inflation.
And there is a reason for that. Despite outward appearances, they are completely different. ...
You miss his point...and mine. They are the same exact things.
For instance, in a "carjacking", some armed thugs take your car while in an "impounding", some armed thugs take your car.
In a "mass murder", some guy kills some innocent people while in "national defense", some guys kill some innocent people.
See?
They are alike only on the most cursory view. They are alike just as the surgeon and the mohel and the murderer are alike, putting knives into others. But anyone would see that they are like (to quote another here) apple and pineapple.
Do I really need to spell out that people get their cars impounded for a reason, for something they have done, while people get carjacked at random? That theft is contrary to the law and impoundment is pursuant to the law? Is that really too tough to understand? Because if it is then the conversation is not going to be fruitful.
-
I am sure others, who don't hold the view that anything politicians scribble is just, will get the point. How about, "All Christians must wear badges."?
"The other day I was ticketed, and my car briefly impounded, when a policeman noticed that I was driving with a cracked windshield."
-
That answers whether the conversation will be fruitful or not.
-
Too true. What is your motive for working for the state (government entity)?
That's not very specific. Does every single resident benefit equally from your efforts or do some benefit while others are harmed?
I believe in the concept of The Common Good. Wrapped up in that notion is the idea that each of us backs off a bit so that we can all live together with a modicum of peace.
That also means citizens who understand the concept of the Constitutional Republic and representative government need to participate in some way. In fact, as I have quoted a number of times, one of the founders when asked as he exited the room were it had finally been decided what form of government we should have, if they had given us a democracy, replied "No madam, we have given you a republic if you can keep it."
So rather than sit around and bitch about how the government is or isn't doing this or that, I participate. I like to believe that my efforts produce a positive and peaceful rectifiction of whatever issue I become involved in.
To ask me if every single resident benefits equally is building a staw man. To satisfy all people at all times in all ways is just not possible. It can't happen. Not even in anarchy. Perhaps even less so in anarchy as it's every man for himself under no restraint at all for any reason except his own. Not all men are reasonable. In fact, my seniority with respect to breathing and walking upright, has taught me that ALL people are unreasonable some of the time.
The fire department charges a millage to operate. If your house is valued higher you will pay more. Perhaps an expensive newer home is less likely to burn. But if it does, I'm sure the resident would be happy to hear the sirens coming. Equality, no. Common good, I think so.
Zoning Board: I was not a fan of zoning laws until I found myself on the township planning commission as a result of being appointed to fill a vacancy on the township board as trustee. I recognized that zoning ordinances, even though they stultify one's ability to do whatever with one's property, probably staves off the potential violent confrontation between a 30 year property owner and his new neighbor that decided to raise pigs or turkeys on his one acre lot. In other words, good planning might stop me from doing something, but in the end the neighborhood might remain a bit more peaceful and safe for a larger group of people.
As a market anarchist you talk about making agreements from time to time. Well that is what zoning ordinances are. Residents agree on a master plan for the township. Appointed folks create the framework for that plan. The elected representatives review and yea or nay that framework. They are also living documents, so they can be changed, or exceptions made if the rules prohibit one from enjoying as close as possible, the same kind of property rights as others in the neighborhood.
Our 800 acre lake is infested with an exotic plant; Eurasian milfoil. The only way to reasonably be able to keep the lake from turning into a swamp is to apply certain chemicals in well understood amounts using professional, licensed applicators. It is costly. So, representative government has set up a process that provides a group of citizens ( A Lake Board) to be able to extract a small sum of money from everyone to pay for managing the water quality. If it were not so, left up to individual judgement, who know what kind of nasty crap would go into the water for weed control. At best the many would be getting the benefit of the concern and financial contribution of the few. How do I know this? Because that's the way it was 25 years ago.
The way it is done now, is everyone pays a fair share based on benefit. Not perfect. Not total equality. Common good? I think so.
I guess I could go on, but I think what I'm talking about is where a group of people in a township mutually agree, after having an opportunity to provide input by meeting and discussing objectives, to set up the township in a certain fashion. They elect representatives to carry those things out. The Common Good.
If someone new moves in and doesn't like it, he is free to leave or lobby for changes or restrain himself and get along with the Common Good.
I agree that government doesn't always work well. In fact it disgusts me a lot of the time. But if good people would get involved, good things can happen. At the state and federal level I see more sparring for power, notoriety, money et al and less representative governance. It's that way because we sit on the sidelines. I'm not.
You sound pretty set in your notions, so I probably have bloviated into a stone wall.
But you asked, and I used some bandwidth. Probably not as detailed nor illiminating as it should have been, but I'm hungry and going to the restaurant to eat some dead fish and drink some Irish whiskey.