Tuesday, October 23, 2007
  Is this liberty?

The Ron Paul approach is internally inconsistent. He says we should have complete personal liberty and avoid foreign entanglements, and he says this is what the founders intended.

It sounds good, and must admit I'd been seduced into halfway appreciating the approach if not buying it.

But it doesn't work, and it's not what the founders intended.

= = = = =

First, why doesn't it work?

Okay, let's follow the isolationist model, as outlined by Bryan, Taft, Coolidge and Paul. We stay within our own borders, fortify to control incoming planes and missiles, and stop trying to influence the rest of the world.

This works nicely against traditional warfare. If you're trying to stop attacks by clearly identified enemy bombers and rockets, technology can do the job relatively well provided we stay totally alert for all potential threats. And if we have impressive enough fortification, traditional enemies will pick easier targets.

It doesn't work against internal subversion. The walls do nothing to stop or slow Mohammedan and Communist penetration of our media, schools, prisons, legislatures, and courts; and they do nothing to prevent home-grown terrorists from planning and executing attacks.

Preventing subversion and internal attack requires a serious internal police force, and requires a loss of liberty for any potential terrorist, which in turn means a serious loss of all those "due process rights" which the Paulites seem to enjoy so much.

If the authorities are willing to determine who's bad and who's good, catching and holding the bad guys doesn't require a Long Twilight Struggle.

Around 1900-1910 we had a serious threat from Anarchists, who were essentially revolutionaries without a utopian vision. They planted bombs all over the country and even assassinated President McKinley. The ancestor of the FBI put them down ruthlessly, violating every "right" in the book, and we had no further problem with the Anarchists.

In 1938 the Japs in Hawaii and California were setting up a campaign of sabotage. We declared martial law in Hawaii in '38 and rounded up the suspicious Japs in California just after Pearl Harbor. We also rounded up thousands of dubious Germans and Italians, with less fanfare. This violated every "right" in the book, but we had very little sabotage during WW2.

Sidenote: I just now realized there's something odd -- but revealing -- about the cultural response to these roundups. Ever since WW2 our Communist masters have been hammering us with the notion that the roundup of Jap saboteurs was utterly intolerable, our greatest sin of the century, etc, but I've never heard one word of criticism or even publicity about the similar roundup of European saboteurs. If you're going to make a distinction, this particular distinction seems backward since the Japs directly and treacherously attacked us while the Germans didn't. In addition, all of them were Fascists, thus all should have been equally anathema to our Communist masters. But that's the wrong logic. The correct logic is: Germans and Italians are White Devils, therefore punishing them was fine whether they did anything at all. Japs are Persons Of Color, therefore punishing them was sinful regardless of their deeds.

= = = = =

Second, why isn't it what the founders intended?

Simpler answer here. Freedom as defined by Paul's Libertarian followers has a totally different meaning from "pursuit of happiness" as defined by Hamilton and Jefferson.

Ham and Jeff wanted a land where non-criminal people are free to pursue productive ends. How do you achieve this freedom? By stopping the criminals and the saboteurs harshly and firmly, through legal AND CULTURAL means. By allowing normal people to discriminate between good and bad, without fear of a lawsuit. By punishing the bad instantly and publicly. If punishment is instant and public, it doesn't always need to be harsh and expensive. One public spanking, in sufficiently humiliating style, would reform most young dickheads far more effectively than a year in jail.

The Anti-Civilization Lawyers Union has so totally corrupted our court system AND our cultural discourse that we are required to reverse our natural perceptions for all consequential purposes. The ACLU's goal has been perfectly explicit from the start, and it's (not coincidentally) the same as the Anarchist's goal. Revolution and chaos.

Despite the decades of Orwellian cultural and legal pressure by a self-declared enemy agency, and despite the supine obedience of our political ratshit class, most Americans still have a solid sense of right and wrong, and a clear perception of what is in our national interest. Newt is trying to spread this news in his recent set of poll-based speeches.

In short, most Americans still understand this basic point: Liberty for normal and productive people has no connection at all to "rights". Habeas corpus, the high totem of the Libertarian faith, does nothing at all for normal people, and presumption of innocence does nothing to stop rogue prosecutors like Nifong.

These "rights" have been intentionally turned around by the ACLU, so that they only serve to free the bad and imprison the normal.

Hamilton and Jefferson, and more broadly the English common law tradition, aimed to keep normal people out of the hands of the court system entirely. Judges are supposed to use common sense to dismiss idiotic cases; prosecutors are supposed to filter out obviously nonsensical accusations and push hard on the obviously serious ones. Ham and Jeff didn't foresee the Leninist virus, didn't foresee that Federal judges would end up serving an enemy ideology whose explicit announced goal is to destroy Christian civilization.

The solution to this problem cannot be gradual and incremental. Judicial restraint is just a euphemism for letting the enemy win. And it's not enough to spend one year per single appointment in the Senate while waiting for the enemy judges to die off.

The Federal appellate system, AND ALL THE CASE LAW INVALIDLY CREATED THEREBY, must be totally eliminated for the duration of this war and rebuilt later if we find the need for it. (We probably won't, since it's not even defined in the Constitution.) Prosecutors should be supervised by handlers without legal training to insure that they use ordinary sense and judgment. (In theory, eliminating all the case law may conceivably eliminate one or two words or phrases which happened, through omission or typographical error, to agree with the Constitution; but that's a sacrifice worth making in order to rip out the 99.99999999999999% of the case law which is purely evil and purely destructive.)

The Ron Paul forces, by emphasizing "due process" and casting aside the common sense that underpins common law, are serving Lenin and Osama, not the Constitution.
 


<< Home

blogger hit counter
My Photo
Name:
Location: Spokane

Polistra was named after the original townsite of Manhattan (the one in Kansas). When I was growing up in Manhattan, I spent a lot of time exploring by foot, bike, and car. I discovered the ruins of an old mill along Wildcat Creek, and decided (inaccurately) that it was the remains of the original site of Polistra. Accurate or not, I've always liked the name, with its echoes of Poland (an under-appreciated friend of freedom) and stars. ==== The title icon is explained here. ==== Switchover: This 2007 entry marks a sharp change in worldview from neocon to pure populist. ===== The long illustrated story of Polistra's Dream is a time-travel fable, attempting to answer the dangerous revision of New Deal history propagated by Amity Shlaes. The Dream has 8 episodes, linked in a chain from the first. This entry explains the Shlaes connection.

My graphics products:

Free stuff at ShareCG

And some leftovers here.

ARCHIVES
March 2005 / April 2005 / May 2005 / June 2005 / July 2005 / August 2005 / September 2005 / October 2005 / November 2005 / December 2005 / January 2006 / February 2006 / March 2006 / April 2006 / May 2006 / June 2006 / July 2006 / August 2006 / September 2006 / October 2006 / November 2006 / December 2006 / January 2007 / February 2007 / March 2007 / April 2007 / May 2007 / June 2007 / July 2007 / August 2007 / September 2007 / October 2007 / November 2007 / December 2007 / January 2008 / February 2008 / March 2008 / April 2008 / May 2008 / June 2008 / July 2008 / August 2008 / September 2008 / October 2008 / November 2008 / December 2008 / January 2009 / February 2009 / March 2009 / April 2009 / May 2009 / June 2009 / July 2009 / August 2009 / September 2009 / October 2009 / November 2009 / December 2009 / January 2010 / February 2010 / March 2010 / April 2010 / May 2010 / June 2010 / July 2010 / August 2010 / September 2010 / October 2010 / November 2010 / December 2010 / January 2011 / February 2011 / March 2011 / April 2011 / May 2011 / June 2011 / July 2011 / August 2011 / September 2011 / October 2011 / November 2011 / December 2011 / January 2012 / February 2012 / March 2012 / April 2012 / May 2012 / June 2012 / July 2012 / August 2012 / September 2012 / October 2012 / November 2012 / December 2012 / January 2013 / February 2013 / March 2013 / April 2013 / May 2013 / June 2013 / July 2013 / August 2013 / September 2013 / October 2013 / November 2013 / December 2013 / January 2014 / February 2014 / March 2014 / April 2014 / May 2014 / June 2014 / July 2014 / August 2014 / September 2014 / October 2014 / November 2014 / December 2014 / January 2015 / February 2015 / March 2015 / April 2015 / May 2015 / June 2015 / July 2015 / August 2015 / September 2015 / October 2015 / November 2015 / December 2015 / January 2016 / February 2016 / March 2016 / April 2016 / May 2016 / June 2016 / July 2016 / August 2016 / September 2016 / October 2016 / November 2016 / December 2016 / January 2017 / February 2017 / March 2017 / April 2017 /


Major tags or subjects:

Carbon Cult
Defensible spaces
Ethics
Experiential education
Grand Blueprint
Гром победы
Heimatkunde
Language updates
Metrology
Natural law = Sharia law
New toys
Skill-estate
Switchover

Powered by Blogger