Scott responded a few days ago. This must be my tenth time to attempt to post our discussion, yet the sidebar content keeps moving to the bottom of the screen... stupid blogger.
Chase,
I understand the fear of losing our prominence, our power and our influence from attack from the outside as well as from the inside. Not that I think that constant terrorist threats are overstated, but I do believe that the fear of terrorism is used as a tool by the current administration to keep people at the heel of Bush and the rest of the gang. It's unfair and it's bullying. There are things that need to be done that are not in terms of national security and starting wars is not the best way to bolster security.
The removal of the Taliban was expected, understood and endorsed by the international community. That is very important. The removal of Saddam from Iraq was also important and necessary, but the method was disingenuous and not supported by the international community. It needed to happen but not under false pretenses. We ended up compromising the integrity of the US, marginalizing the UN and killing thousands and thousands of Iraqi citizens, over a 1000 US and coalition forces and inflaming the Muslim world. Not exactly a positive note for national security.
Societal degradation is in the eye of the beholder. For those that are not devout conservative Christians, homosexual marriage is a right while the Faithful believe it is sodomy. Regardless of the side we take on that issue, we cannot govern God, the Bible, the Koran, what have you. Marriage is a religious act, while civil unions are a legal act. But to tell any homosexual that they cannot marry a man or woman that they feel Godly love for is not in the jurisdiction of the government. Freedom of religion, First Amendment, homosexuals have the right to marry in front of a God that loves them and allows them to live in that capacity. This is beyond banal arguments that people will then marry their sisters, little kids, horses, etc, that's irrelevant. It is a seriously private and religious matter that the US government cannot dictate.
Other forces of societal degradation, like obsession with violence, tasteless TV, vile forms of entertainment, varying vices, dishonesty/corruption, etc some of those also are hard to discern. We need to keep on our toes and let our own morality navigate us to what we think is right. These things will rot our society from the inside out. People need to keep in mind a few things, religious or non, Are your actions generally fair? Are your actions hypocritical? Do you maintain dignity? Do you maintain integrity? Do you do the things you say you are going to do? Are you the change you seek in this world? (A favorite from Gandhi)
I don't feel that the world is our frontier, I am not an isolationist but we need to cooperate through the UN to settle conflicts, if not, then what is the purpose of the organization? This is a requisite for the smooth transition into globalization. The pre-emptive war doctrine is a disaster; did we think that we are the only ones that could use this? North Korea, Iran, Russia, they all have said that they are willing to use this doctrine to carry out their agenda. What is to stop the rest of the world from attacking the "terrorists" ?
With respect to John Kerry, I don't know exactly what happened when he returned and spoke in front of the Senate in the 1970’s, I know he infuriated lots of folks, something about rapists, murderers and baby killers, but I am pretty uninformed, and anything I look up on the web is pretty much rhetorical in one direction or the other, so I cannot really comment there. If you could fill me in a bit more, I would appreciate it.
Corporations were created as an extension of the government, chartered by the monarch (and later the state) to "promote the general welfare. They were given privileges such as limited liability because their sole purpose was to improve civic life through such enterprises as building highways and postal service."
This is not what has happened. Money has become the bottom line, not the interests of the people. With massive amounts of money and power, lobbyists as well as corporate big wigs (i.e. Ken Lay and the US energy policy) are having influence over the rest of the public, over policy and over politicians. From Rupert Murdoch to Bill Gates to Jeffrey Immelt, so much power should no be invested in so few. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
As to withholding your support from corporations that you do not support, that is too simplistic; most people do not even know what these corporations are up to. They are very good at deception and spin, it keeps them making money.
The PATRIOT act has been used for activities that have nothing to due with terrorism or national security (abuses) it extends the laws that have already existed, from wiretapping to search and seizure to detainment of "enemy combatants." This is some serious scary Orwellian stuff going on.
Anyway, I am enjoying this discourse and anticipate your response.
ScottTo Which I responded
Scott,
Please forgive the choppiness of this response. I have written it during sparse amounts of time (the most time I've spent on it in one sitting is probably five minutes). As of now I'm on some over the counter sinus medication- I'm completely out of it.
I agree that starting wars is not the best way to bolster security. That is why we have not started any. The forces of Islamic autocracy declared war on the United States of America decades ago. We have only begun to fight back as of late.
I believe that there were only two methods of Saddam's removal. A: let the bastard die a natural death. This would have had one of his maniacal sons take power, thus the situation would not have been any better. B: the use of force. This would be the quickest, and safest way. We do not have to deal with decades more power from Saddam's family.
That "international community" part is frustrating. There were thirty four nations that I can remember having sent troops to Iraq: Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Thailand, the Philippines, Romania, Slovakia, South Korea, Spain, Ukraine and the United Kingdom.
The international community (by which I take it you mean the UN) did in fact authorize "serious consequences" if Iraq failed to comply with demands. What is the "international community" (UN) worth if it can't be counted on to enforce its word?
I also take it you mean the weapons of mass destruction when you say "false pretenses". Far from acting under false pretenses, I think it would have been irresponsible and a gross violation of power to have acted in a different fashion.
I support the Iraq war for a host of reasons.
First, I've always thought "If we would have attacked Germany when it was clear that they had violated the terms of their former defeat, would those millions of Jews and Poles have survived?"
Personally, I think that Saddam would not have had those millions of HAZMAT suits without a pretty clear reason. I think he would not have had his thugs harass and control the weapon's inspectors for no clear reason. I don't think the sarin gas incident in Baghdad was just some freak occurrence, either. The intelligence agencies of this country, Britain, Russia, and even France thought it was a "slam dunk" that Iraq had these weapons. Even the usually no-good UN released a report which said it believed Iraq had shipped heavily guarded materials into Syria shortly before the war.
Dr. David Kay, the chief coalition arms investigator, reported to Congress in October 2003:
"A clandestine network of laboratories and safe houses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to UN monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW research"
"A prison laboratory complex possibly used in human testing of BW agents, which Iraqi officials working to prepare for UN inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN.
"Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons.
"New research on BW- applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever, and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN.
"Documents and equipment, hidden in scientists' homes, that would have been useful in resuming uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation
"A line of UAVs not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 km--- 350 km beyond the permissible limit.
"Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited SCUD variant missiles, a capability that was maintained at least until the end of 2001, and which cooperating Iraqi scientists have said they were told to conceal from the UN
"Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges up to at least 1000 km- well beyond the 150 km range limit imposed by the UN. Missiles of a 1000- km range would have allowed Iraq to threaten targets throughout the Middle East, including Ankara, Cairo, and Abu Dhabi [not to mention any target in Israel].
"Clandestine attempts between late 1999 and 2002 to obtain from North Korea technology related to 1300 km range ballistic missiles, 300 km range anti ship cruise missiles, and other prohibited military equipment.
"In addition to the discovery of extensive concealment efforts, we have been faced with a systematic sanitization of documentary and computer evidence in a wide range of offices, laboratories, and companies suspected of WMD work. The pattern of these efforts to erase evidence -- hard drives destroyed, specific files burned, equipment cleaned of all traces of use-- are ones of deliberate, rather than random, acts."
It is my personal theory that while America was debating and bickering whether to take action, Saddam destroyed some of his weapons, moved some others to foreign locations (specifically Syria, though the possibility of Iran and even Palestine remains open) and simply hid others in the sand. One must remember that Iraq is a sandbox the size of California. How easy would it be to hide objects as small as a shoebox in that much sand?
We also must remember that Mr. Joe Wilson has been completely exposed as a fraud. The reports by numerous intelligence agencies of Iraq attempting to buy uranium in Nigeria have not been discredited to any degree, and further intelligence bolsters these findings.
Also, it is notable that the past Democratic administration fully believed Iraq was in possession of these weapons.
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998.
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Joe Lieberman (D-CT), John McCain (Rino-AZ) and others, Dec. 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002.
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002.
"[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
Some of those links may be dead now.
WMD's or no WMD's, there was a serious appearance of a threat to our nation. If Bush had not acted, and Saddam actually did use these weapons on us, how would history remember Bush?
Making these threats seem much more imminent is Iraq's undeniable history of collaboration with terrorists.
A 1993 CIA report stated, "Bin Laden wanted to expand his organization's capabilities through ties with Iraq".
It has been proven that Saddam subsidized the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. This funding was funneled through the organizations that sent those murderers to their task. It is almost a certainty that those organizations kept a percentage (my guess is about one hundred through one hundred percent) of those funds.
Abu Nidal organization, took refuge in Iraq, staying in lavish safe houses owned and operated by the Iraqi government. He also sheltered the Palestinian Liberation Front and its leader, Abu Abbas (who was even filmed entering and leaving Iraqi government buildings). These organizations operated out of Iraq for extensive amounts of time.
Terror training camps were found in northern Iraq, one with a detached 747 cabin that served as a shooting range of sorts. The motives behind this can be nothing but sinister.
In addition to this abridged list of cooperation with terrorist organizations, Saddam's government served as its own such group. It launched missiles intentionally into foreign civilian areas, intentionally gassed civilian populations, attempted to kill a former leader of the United States, and instilled a deep fear within the citizens of Iraq.
There is a man, let us call him Jim, shown on a bank security camera to have killed five people with an automatic weapon, let us say a MAC-11 (1100 rounds per minute cyclic rate, 32 round clip, .380). A policeman stops him on a street corner, recognizes the man as the murderer, and tells him to put his hands in the air. Jim reaches into his coat in a quick fashion. The policeman follows protocol and shoots him before he can bring out a possible weapon. The policeman technically shot the man preemptively, as he was not completely sure that there his life was 100% in danger. The policeman then searches the dead man and finds either no weapon, or an unloaded, possibly rusted and inoperable gun. The policeman, in any case, is completely justified in this action. He acted to defend himself against a very real threat. It is the same scenario in Iraq and elsewhere. We must not wait until we have absolute, 100 percent confirmation of the abilities and intentions of those who would do us harm. If we perceive a threat, especially if the threat comes from a power/nation/ruler with a history of extreme violence and the willingness to use that violence against other nations and peoples, then we must act to neutralize that threat. Just as the security of the policeman depended on his ability to take the criminal Jim down, the security of the United States of America depends on our ability to eliminate threats that we perceive as eminent. To not act with aggressive assertion, and yes sometimes preemption, would mean that when the policeman encounters a criminal with a working, loaded Ingram sub-machine gun, he would get shot. To not act in such a way with a state that has a history of using chemical weapons, starting wars for territory, oppressing and killing millions, and actively seeking the deaths of former leaders of the United States, would mean that that said state would be able to attack the United States.
I also believe this war helped protect us in the abstract. I am an avid follower of Real Whig thinking. They believed that once tyranny has its foot on your chest, its bayonet at your throat, the it is too late to resist. Tyranny must be dealt with before it even has a semblance of threat. This means that tyranny must be recognized as such and eliminated using means that best insure its rabid destruction.
This thought has evolved into what would now be considered the neoconservative position: that the best way to ensure our safety is to radically democratize areas where danger is likely to arise. Tyranny and liberty are two incompatible objects and confrontation between the two is inevitability. If we do not destroy tyranny over seas, we will be forced to confront it at home. Think of the last time we have been attacked by a truly capitalist, democratic nation with a respect for natural rights. Has it ever even happened? No, it has not. We fought a war of independence primarily over two issues: virtual representation (the ability for a parliament in which the colonies were not represented to have jurisdiction in all cases whatsoever) and mercantilism (Britain's over regulation and interference in the colonies' economy). Both of those things were hostile to capitalism and democracy.
Our nation was attacked by Confederate rebels, whose pretenses of democratic endeavor were riddled by their maintenance of a system of supreme tyranny, slavery.
In World Wars One and Two, our nation was threatened by an autocratic Germany.
The Japan that attacked our nation was one of the most centralized nations on earth at the time. Industry and the lives of the Japanese were completely controlled by government and the collectivist representations of society.
It is my firm belief that freedom breeds freedom. Liberation from a tyranny, and the installation of a government as well as the promotion of a society that prizes individual rights, will invariably lend to a safer world situation.
All of these things, though, pale in comparison to my original and still foremost reason for supporting the Iraq war: the almost instant freedom of millions of people from the yoke of oppression. In the beginning, I did not care about any other reason for this war. I only wanted to free those people. I've always been a bleeding heart conservative: behind all of the individualism, advocacy for government non-influence, etc I wanted nothing but to help my fellow man. I probably have a different idea of how to help him, but that is the base reason for all of my beliefs. The Iraq war is also one of the main reasons I am a conservative today. My beliefs were transformed by looking at who, with the most venom, opposed what I saw as the freedom of millions and millions of people from the worst tyranny since the fall of the Soviet Union (although one could argue China is still the worst tyranny).
I think that if a person or a people truly love something, they must be ready to defend and expand that thing's reach. If America truly loves liberty, then we must be ready to defend all liberty at all times in all places. If we fail to pursue the protection of natural rights in every instance, then we do not stand for liberty at all. If America does not stand for individual liberty, then I seek not to live in this world.
I don't think we compromised the integrity of the US at all. We committed our word to stopping tyranny all the way back in the JFK administration. What ever happened to "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any Burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and success of liberty."
Ever since the UN ejected nationalist China from and inserted Red China into its membership, the UN has had no moral standing whatsoever.
To quote from Ayn Rand,
"There is no margin for error about a monstrosity that was created for the alleged purpose of preventing wars by uniting the world against any aggressor, but proceeded to unite it against any victim of aggression. The expulsion of a charter member, the Republic of China [Taiwan]—an action forbidden by the U.N.'s own Charter—was a 'moment of truth,' a naked display of the United Nations' soul.What was Red China's qualification for membership in the U.N.? The fact that her government seized power by force, and has maintained it for twenty-two years by terror. What disqualified Nationalist China [Taiwan]? The fact that she was a friend of the United States. It was against the United States that all those beneficiaries of our foreign aid were voting at the U.N. It was hatred of the United States and the pleasure of spitting in our face that they were celebrating, as well as their liberation from morality—with savages, appropriately, doing jungle dances in the aisles."
In Saddam's 24 years in power, he killed anywhere between a conservative estimate of 500,000 and a large estimate of 1.5 million of his own people. This equals anywhere between 21 thousand and 63 thousand people per annum. Even if the United States killed ten thousand civilians per year (which is a considerably exaggerated estimate) in the conduct of this war, that still means we are saving hundreds of thousands in the long run and tens of thousands in the here and now.
It is sad and extremely regrettable that we have passed the mark of a thousand dead in our current endeavor, but in believing that these deaths are justification for the relinquishment of our cause, then we have made sure these men and women died in vain. Each and every one of these people volunteered for the finest military force in history; each one of our battle dead are heroes for the cause of freedom. We must not lament these deaths, but rather honor and celebrate those who have so freely given their lives in protection of the foreword mach of freedom. It is they who have ensured that the trumpet herald of liberty and the marching drum of justice are finally heard by our brothers and sisters in the sight of Providence, the downtrodden of Iraq.
We also must remember that, even though any war death is an occasion for somberness, in military terms this has been an astonishingly, thoroughly successful conflict. In Iraq, we have had one thousand war deaths over the course of a year and a half of action. In Vietnam, we had one thousand war deaths every seven weeks. In World War Two, we lost one thousand men every three days.
Attacking Nazi Germany inflamed the fascist world as well. Would it have been a positive note for our national security if we had not fought the Axis powers?
As for societal degradation, I was referring to the specific kinds that history tells us led to the downfall of Rome. When the Goths were invading, half of Rome's best military commanders were to busy taking part in daily orgies to fight. Most of those sent poor replacements (in many cases a male lover that had fallen out of favor) in their stead. Though I find these acts morally repulsive, I was commenting from the standpoint of an objective student of history. I had a book from an ex columnist for the Economist about how the behavior of the Roman power-holders at that time had many parallels to the behavior of the citizens of the Weimar Republic, "Germans then were too busy exploring their own Vergnügenrevolution to see the rise of the Nazi party as what it was" was the first sentence, but I have since misplaced it and am not going to attempt to use any of that thought process in the debate process.
As for the phrase "conservative Christian", I believe that if you follow the tenets of the Christian faith, there is no avoiding a socially conservative, small government philosophy.
There are five schools of thought when it comes to natural rights: that rights are granted by the Lord, that rights are bestowed by the government, that rights are granted by society, that rights are created by ourselves, and that rights are granted by nature and the environment.
I will address these in reverse order.
We must first start off with a lose definition of "rights". A right is something that an individual has the just ability to do, and can act upon that without unjust interference from another individual or from the state. To refer to "our rights" is to refer to a set of things that we, as individuals can and should do freely, and cannot and should not do, and are thus subject to interference from outside authority. Rights, despite what some who are dead set against them say, are closely assigned with the definition of certain things and behaviors as right or wrong: morality. An inherent corollary to our rights, and thus a right itself, is the ability to defend our rights as we see fit.
Many believe that our rights, though natural and intrinsic, are created by nature. This comes either out of a misunderstanding of the phrase "natural rights" or by their being of the belief that humans are nothing but plain animals not set apart by our intellect and our abilities, and thus equal to God's other, lesser creations."Natural," in "natural rights" means inherent. The use of this word means that we attain the use of these rights at our creation, and that, since they are intrinsic, no force can claim our rights and powers to be their own (with the exception of self defense, just warfare, and criminal justice).
To believe that our rights come from nature for reasons other than a deflated eloquence is also to hold false thoughts. This is for two reasons. A: If one already believes that we are the product of a Creator, the argument can be made that since nature is also a product of that Creator, and since God controls that nature and/or that the laws of nature are an example of how He works in the world, then our rights actually come from the Lord. This encompasses and eliminates the necessity of one's argument. B: To claim our rights come from the environment is to debase human reason, instinct, and morality to the level of any common animal. The environment is not an arbiter of right and wrong, only of might: to believe our rights come from an amoral nature outside of the bounds of any higher being, is to put forth a theory that "survival of the fittest" applies not only to our intrinsic abilities to succeed or our genetic ability to fight illness, but also to physical contact with other humans. Following the line of thought that this theory brings, one can assert, "Since in nature animals kill in competition for a mate, food, and shelter, then it is my right to do so." We, in a society that believes in this, would have chaos and anarchy. This environment, in which one can reference anything in nature as precedent for a behavior, would be the home of an amoral society. Thus government in this theory would be a common understanding to not kill each other based upon each person's self interests. This, however, violates the nature bestowal theory by granting a value upon life and property, things that can only have value where there is a moral protection of them. Thus, this nature bestowal theory, in which there is no moral arbiter in the form of a supreme being and government is viewed as a common confederation, will undoubtedly lead to the theory that rights come from that common understanding, thus they come from a society or government. Unfortunately, many have sunken to this low intellectual level, especially in the environmental movement.
Many believe that rights are the product of our own bestowal. There is a major problem with this in that no human being has the power to declare an act inherently immoral, unless citing the absolute arbiter of right and wrong, God. In a person devoid of God, as in an amoral nature, there is no absolute morality. To believe that we generate our own rights is to also believe that we generate our own morality, which we as moral humans have not the divine authority nor holiness to do. One person's concept of rights may not coincide with the next, thus is the problem with moral relativism and the belief that we generate or own rights: one can say "I have the supreme right to kill every second person that looks at me funny" or "I am Jimmy, agent of Zeus, God of the Universe, I have the right to eat your pomegranate and steal relics from your polis temple!" In a society that believes this, one's man-made rights may include those that infringe upon the life or the liberty of another person, and vice versa.
Advocating the belief that rights of the individual come from the our own person leads to the thought that the rights of the individual come from society. There are many faults with this. One is that society would have to conform to the same conclusion about specific rights, without any sort of moral arbiter in the form of God. This is compounded by the individual's inability to confer morality upon himself. Another fault of this thought is that it means that a human being can grant natural rights to another human being. Practice of this thought would invariably lead a form of tyranny, with a set of human deciding the rights of another without eluding to the set absolution of rights found in a Creator. An example of this the belief would be if the citizens of a nation vote to legalize all abortion, claiming as many of today's collectivists do that it is a woman's right to kill her child. This society has concluded to give a woman the right of a tyrant, and take from a person their right to life. The "Rights are what society says them to be" thought is further dispelled when you look at the first state of nature after Adam and Eve were removed from Eden. Each person, in that situation, was "society" to the other. Neither of them could realistically bestow rights upon the other, nor could the two of them together bestow rights upon themselves. This philosophy lends itself to the belief that the good of all secures the good of each: that individual rights are superseded by the wants of a society.
A society that believes their rights come from society itself leads to a belief that rights come from the institution that, in the collectivist mindset of societal rights, makes decisions for the individual. In other words, the government hands over rights to the people. In this system, the arbiter of right and wrong is an artificial institution of coercion, run by a certain amount of humans incapable of making an act moral. This adds power to the thought in the previous rights thought, that what is good for the society is the main goal. Thus rights, in this situation, have the possibility to be curtailed at the whim of the government, without regard to Higher Law. The government may announce one day that free speech is not a right, and retract itself the next, yet still execute those arrested for dissent on that one day of restricted speech. This belief system is a sure guarantee of despotism, as no government has the divine authority to decide on its own what is a moral right or not. This thought is usually aspired to through collectivism societal right bestowal, or through the "Divine Right of Kings" theory, which states that despots gain their power to rule from the Lord. This is a false notion, as no man, even a king, is spared from the restrictions that God has placed upon the earth. This includes the only restriction of governmental purpose: that no man has the right to harm another when not engaged in self defense, defense of one's country, or criminal justice. To believe that rights are the gift of a government is to believe falsely that government is excluded from their own restrictions on rights. It is to give absolute power to a body that is no more intellectually capable or deserving of power than any other man.
God gave us our freedom from oppressive government by His sole ownership of authority.These four right bestowal theories are false. In the first explained, there is either no moral arbiter, thus there is no concept of right and wrong, thus there is no real concept of what can be a right or not. In the rest, humans are a moral arbiter. This leads to the empowering of one, few, or many at the expense of the individual, as there is not an absolute concept of right and wrong, good and evil. Our natural rights are exercisable by the fact that the exercise of our liberty, will not infringe upon the rights of others, and vice versa. This is only possible if there is an absolute and unchanging morality, which is only possible if our rights were endowed by our Creator. It is only following the pre-arbitrated morality of God that a person, society, or government can debate and decide what actions or behaviors are rights. Without an absolute grantor of our natural rights, there is no way to be certain that we actually have them, thus leading to the abrogation of life, liberty, and property. The only logical conclusion that any freedom loving person can conclude is that our rights have been bestowed by God. Anything else is simple tyranny.
Thus, in a world where rights are bestowed by a Creator, anything forbidden as a natural right (and thus not liable to be protected by the government) is subject to any amount of governmental jurisdiction. This follows through with gay marriage. There is no religion with a respect for natural rights in the world that fails to condemn homosexuality.
We all operate in front of a God that loves us, but that does not mean that He approves or consents to our actions. As for the free exercise clause, that in no way grants the right to homosexual marriage. An argument could be made (I would not particularly agree with it) that that right is implied, but the arbiter of that right would be the government, as it deals with the Constitution. For a governmental body, say the Supreme Court, to create a right were there is no clear and unimpeachable basis in the text or the original intent of the Founders, is to state that the government is the grantor of rights in general, a thought which leads to ever increasing amounts of governmental authority. If an Amendment were ratified that were to state "Neither the federal government nor the several states may null any marital contract on the basis of sexual orientation," then and only then would the ability to marry a person of the same sex be a constitutional right.
Though I am skeptical that bestiality and incest will increase two/five/ten-fold after the societal acceptance of gay marriage, I do not believe that the arguments stipulating such are drivel. You make an argument for gay marriage that rests on the thought that if a person has a true love for another person, there is no right to prevent them from marrying each other. How is it irrelevant to say that once this becomes accepted, it will not spread to incestual relations? After all, if one loves his sister in a romantic fashion and has that love reflected and the government may not consider any religious morality when making law and regulating behavior, what right would the government have to stop that marriage?
Other forces of societal degradation, like obsession with violence, tasteless TV, vile forms of entertainment, varying vices, dishonesty/corruption, etc some of those also are hard to discern. We need to keep on our toes and let our own morality navigate us to what we think is right. These things will rot our society from the inside out. People need to keep in mind a few things, religious or non, Are your actions generally fair? Are your actions hypocritical? Do you maintain dignity? Do you maintain integrity? Do you do the things you say you are going to do? Are you the change you seek in this world? (A favorite from Gandhi)
In regards to that I agree hole-heartedly.
The UN was not founded to settle conflicts through cooperation: the League of Nation's was. The UN was created with the express definition of being a League of Nations that could and would go out and shoot things up to enforce its decisions.
I support the general idea of the UN to an extent. The idea that the entire world would rise against an aggressor is admirable, but sadly the UN has never actually lived up to its primordial function. It was created with the dichotomial premise of averting conflict and advancing freedom. Throughout its history, its Western members have acted as Chamberlain clones, while its Eastern members have constantly acted to subvert democracy in their countries and in the world.
By "frontier" I don't mean that we literally own it. I mean that it is a wild, untamed place that, if let unguarded, could breed forces which will be our downfall.
Think of the last time the UN actually prevented genocide and human rights abuses. It's never happened. Every time the UN sends a "monitoring" force that only fires if fired upon and watches innocent civilians get slaughtered. This is probably because tyrant bastard nations such as China, Libya, Syria and their ilk get treated as equals to the United States, Great Britain, etc. Libya even ran the human rights committee. I wont even mention the Oil for Food program beyond the fact that it allowed corrupt UN, French, and German officials to actually gain money by financing the terrorist regime in Baghdad: it makes me so mad, my vision blurs.
To morally equate North Korea and Iran's words with our actions is nothing short of despicable. Ours is a society and government built on a respect for natural rights: our preemptive actions were taken in protection of those. These aforementioned tyrannies would use any force as a mere land-grab. To compare our actions to these nations is to call America an evil and imperialistic nation, which is to blind oneself to history and prove oneself as not worthy of a serious discussion. To quote from Zell Miller,
"Motivated more by partisan politics than by national security, today's Democratic leaders see America as an occupier, not a liberator. And nothing makes this Marine madder than someone calling American troops occupiers rather than liberators. Tell that to the one-half of Europe that was freed because Franklin Roosevelt led an army of liberators, not occupiers.Tell that to the lower half of the Korean Peninsula that is free because Dwight Eisenhower commanded an army of liberators, not occupiers. Tell that to the half a billion men, women and children who are free today from the Baltics to the Crimea, from Poland to Siberia, because Ronald Reagan rebuilt a military of liberators, not occupiers.Never in the history of the world has any soldier sacrificed more for the freedom and liberty of total strangers than the American soldier. And, our soldiers don't just give freedom abroad; they preserve it for us here at home. For it has been said so truthfully that it is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press.It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the agitator, who has given us the freedom to protest. It is the soldier who salutes the flag, serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag who gives that protester the freedom to abuse and burn that flag."
The Senate controversy started with the Winter Soldier Investigation, a study carried out by VVAW and anti war celebrities such as Jane Fonda and Mark Lane, which attempted to outline US war crimes during the Vietnam conflict. There was only one problem: few of those interviewed had actually even served in Vietnam. Many of those questioned turned out to have never even been in the armed forces. Of those that did serve in Vietnam, most of those did not serve in the capacities that they had reported (they were mostly in logistics). To quote from the National Review:
"When Sen. Mark Hatfield inserted the transcript of the Winter Soldier testimonies into the Congressional Record, he asked the commandant of the Marine Corps to investigate the war crimes allegedly committed by Marines. When the Naval Investigative Service (NIS) attempted to interview those who allegedly had witnessed atrocities, most refused to cooperate, even after assurances that they would not be questioned about atrocities they committed personally. Those who did cooperate never provided details of actual crimes to investigators. The NIS also discovered that some of the most grisly testimony was given by fake witnesses who had appropriated the names of real Vietnam veterans. Guenter Lewy tells the entire story in his book America in Vietnam.
The same thing happened with Army investigators. As Lewy wrote, "The refusal of [those alleging atrocities] to give substantiating factual information . . . created a situation in which the accusers continued to reap generous publicity for their sensational charges while the Army in most cases could neither investigate nor refute them." Lewy concluded that there was another reason to be wary of such allegations: They were retrospective reports and therefore subject to distortion, "created by the veterans' perception of the interviewers and organizers of the hearings, by their attitudes toward the military and by their difficulties in adjusting to civilian life after discharge."
When John Kerry testified before the Senate in 1971, he used the Winter Soldier Investigation as his basis for making claims that
"over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia. These were not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command. . . . They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do. They told stories that at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country."
When he said this, he knew that those involved in the investigation, as many were members of his own organization, Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) were not actual veterans and did not know what they were talking about. He knew, as all Vietnam vets did, that atrocities such as the one listed were just not committed except for the isolated incidents that happen in all wars.
Personally, I would not have such a problem with this, as Vietnam War protestors had an agenda just like everyone else, if it were not for two reasons.
A: The North Vietnamese and the Soviets used his comments as propaganda, and the NVA used tapes of his speech to mentally abuse American prisoners of war. He gave the enemy for free what our captured soldiers resisted torture to prevent saying.
B: Whenever a person in the political arena questions his actions, he claims they are "questioning his patriotism". Similarly, he refuses to even apologize for his remarks.
By "chartered by the monarch" you mean mercantilism (the London Company, the Virginia Company, et al), a system in which a mother country attempts to import the maximum amount of materials from a set of colonies while exporting the minimum amount. And by "state" you must mean "states", as the Federal government minimized its involvement in internal improvements during that time period (1810-1860)
In the world of corporations and business, money is, has been, and should always be the bottom line. If one wishes to form a charitable organization, one is free to do that. But if one wishes to form a company for the strict purpose of self- enrichment, then they have no obligation to use their company as an instrument of social change. To paraphrase from Adam Smith, the butcher does not feed you nor does the tailor clothe you out of the goodness of their hearts, they do it to make a profit, and they do it best when making said profit.
The glory of the free market is that it is so simplistic. If a company acts in an unethical way, the people have the right to inform others about that (and when, honestly, does a company get away with that in this 60 Minutes age). Let us say that after years of competition, Eviltech Corporation completely monopolizes the laser ray industry. To maximize profits, they sell an inferior product at a high price. This creates a market for higher quality laser rays sold by Goodtech Inc. Eventually, either Eviltech is replaced by Goodtech as the leading producer, Eviltech returns to making quality products, or numerous smaller laser ray companies sprout up.
I am not saying that just one person withholding monetary support from a company will work, and I am not saying that corporations are heroes of ethics and morality, but I am saying that limit a corporation one would need to get the government involved, which would lead to even larger problems. Personally, I trust the American people to make the right choice about their own economic matters: I view people in general and Americans in specific as logical beings.
As for money and power: any citizen or group of citizens (sans felons) has the uninfringeable right to affect their political situation, whether they in their private lives are out to make money, turn the US into a socialist utopia, close the borders, replace the US government with an international body, restrict the rights of a certain group, etc or whether they are Planned Parenthood or even the We-Will-Make-Money-At-The-Expense-Of-Every-One-Else Corporation. It would be a greater tyranny for the government to say "you cannot attempt to have your say in the political process" than for some company to lobby for their interests. As for Murdoch, Gates, and Immelt, what actual power do they have over our lives? They cannot take our land, our possessions, or our money unless we give it to them. The government can do all three and we don't have a say in the matter, other than lobbying (lei. using our money and resources) to change that. In order for Bill Gates to have his pretty much non-existent power limited, we would have to allow the government to assume the power to do that. It's like letting the felons run the jail.
Also, if we allow the government to regulate an industry, that just further centralizes that power. The free market can break up monopolies relatively easily: this is all America is not typing on an Apple, playing an Atari, or driving a Ford. A competitor or competitors will, as a historical inevitability, replace companies that corner a market. Allowing regulated markets only ensure that one competitor, the federal government, never has to answer for its economic bad decisions.Scanning your Google search, I have read a lot of "reports that *insert abuse happened* but I cannot seem to find any concrete instances. Do you know where I can find the actual text of the Patriot Act?
Audemus Jura Nostra Defendre,
Chase Bradstreet
