Sep
11
September 11th
Filed Under Uncategorized | 2 Comments
Writers more eloquent than I will have plenty to say on the 8th anniversary of that horrible day. I’ll keep my comments brief, and say that we should take the time today to not only remember those we lost on 9-11, but the families and friends left behind.
Sep
10
On Rights
Filed Under Civil Liberties | 2 Comments
In a recent column about Western governments’ treatment of terrorists, the incomparable Thomas Sowell writes:
So many “rights” have been conjured up out of thin air that many people seem unaware that rights and obligations derive from explicit laws, not from politically correct pieties. If you don’t meet the terms of the Geneva Convention, then the Geneva Convention doesn’t protect you. If you are not an American citizen, then the rights guaranteed to American citizens do not apply to you.
First of all, let me say that Dr. Sowell is someone who I greatly admire and with whom I agree a great deal. However, the argument above, while in the context of rightly argued condemnation of the release of Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, is misguided when explaining the nature of rights.
The beauty of the American Revolution and the genius of our founding as a nation was the concept of natural, inalienable rights. These rights exist independent of government and its laws. We institute the government to protect these rights against those who would violate them. Therefore, government exists because of our rights, not the other way around.
To say that rights “derive from explicit laws” is to confirm the worst fears of those who opposed the bill of rights when the ratification of the U.S. Constitution was being debated. Many were worried that if amendments were added guaranteeing our right to free spech or due process, that the bill of rights would be viewed as an exhaustive list, and that rights that were not included on such a list could only be granted at the whim of politicians. To assuage such fears, the 9th Amendment was added, which reads:
The enumeration in the constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
If we are to concede to the viewpoint that rights can only be valid if endorsed by written laws, then the statists will have the authority to trample individual liberty in countless forms. Constitutions like those of the United States were meant to give explicit rights only to governments; that is governments may only do what is permitted to them by the constitution written by free individuals. Individuals (and state and local governments) hold all other rights.
My right to freedom of speech and worship does not come from the 1st Amendment - it is only codified by it. Likewise for my right to bear arms. However, if we are to operate on the assumption that my rights are only derived from what is explicitly stated in the constitution or by statute, then where is my right to trade and commerce with my fellow citizens? My right to donate to the charity of my choosing? My right to have children? My right to freedom of association and movement?
Nonsense. My right to these things are inherent by virtue of my existent. They are “self-evident.” No law can erase them.
Battles over the right to bear arms have largely focused on the wording and intent of the 2nd Amendment. This too is misguided. The right to personal protection is a natural right given by our creator, and exists regardless of what some law or circuit court says.
That is not to say that Dr. Sowell is incorrect in his assertion that Megrahi’s release was a gross miscariage of justice and an offense to the innocent. Nor that enemy combatants should pay, in many cases harshly and swiftly, for their attacks on our country. However, this is because such individuals, like any petty criminal down the street, did indeed have rights, but that by virtue of their actions they lost them. This is the argument conservatives should use that not only keeps Americans safe and our system of justice intact, but preserves our freedom.
If we fall into the trap that the statist has set that government may do whatever it wants, but that the rights of individuals are restricted to what is spelled out by law, then we have already lost the battle against a leviathan government. Where is the explicit right to property? To dissent? There is none. Nor do we need it to know these rights exist.
Jan
21
Letter to the President
Filed Under Uncategorized | Leave a Comment
Dear President Barack Obama,
Congratulations on taking the oath of office yesterday as our 44th president. Even a somewhat cynical conservative such as myself can take pride as our nation finally has its first black president. There is no denying the historical significance of the moment, nor the hope and optimism that you inspire.
Watching your inaugural address, I couldn’t help but be uplifted. Just reading the text, it seems as if Ronald Reagan could have given it, save a few exceptions. It may be just me, but you seem to have been making some stark revelations about the nature of the responsibilities you inherit, and for the first time in your life, the wisdom of conservative principles are making their impression.
It was easy to criticize George W. Bush and the Republican party from your senate seat or the stump, but after having seen the choices given to you, you’re beginning to see that things are not as simple as you originally thought.
Since winning the election in November, your rhetoric has made some key departures from standard liberalism, and that is both surprising and encouraging to me. But there are some issues I want to address regarding the ambitions charter you laid out for your administration yesterday.
To hear you speaking of a “far-reaching network of violence and hatred” was one of the first times I’ve heard you reference the enemy for what it is. Your tone was markedly sharper in reference to the Islamic extremists and dictators in the Muslim world who wish us harm. It is your responsibility as Commander In Chief to protect our country and bring these murderers to justice. Yet, many of your allies will oppose your efforts now that you have begun to see the true nature of the beast. The clamor has already begun from your side to let these monsters off easy, and loyalty will be hard to find. I assure you that, ironically, the conservatives will back you in your efforts to defeat the enemy at hand, hopefully as effectively as your predecessor has.
You went on yesterday to speak of subjective experiences with a rough economy, tempered with such views as being, “subject to data and statistics.” Here and here are a few. As that information shows, we are hardly close to the great depression, or even economic turmoils of the last 30 years. I would suggest you tailor government response, if any, to the scale of the situation and not use it as a giant excuse for a pork-laden stimulus bill. It is probably too much to ask for you to see the role of government intervention as the cause of many of these problems and refrain from using it as the solution. What I do ask is that you watch any government spending like a hawk, as members of congress from both parties see Keynesian stimulus as nothing more than vote getters.
Also, Mr. President, you mentioned themes of “responsibility” and “hard choices.” Indeed there are many hard choices that we, as individuals, will have to make. You wished that “the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things” will have freedom. I was also thrilled to hear you acknowledge the power of the free market as a creator of wealth and the agent of social mobility. On this we agree, yet you are still willing to inject the hand of government in the form of taxation, subsidies, and regulation into our economy. How can you reconcile these two points? The economy will not get back on its feet until the chains of government are lifted and the power of the free market unleashed.
Finally, you warned against “protecting narrow interests” and uplifting the poor of the world. There is no greater injustice in this world than the fact that there are children literally starving to death abroad while the leading killer in this country is too much food. Yet, you have railed against the advance of free trade and prosperity (and for protecting narrow interests) by opposing or supporting the limitation of NAFTA and CAFTA, as well as trying to give unions an unfair advantage. You also said yesterday that American cannot “consume the world’s resources without regard to effect.” Surely a consumer cannot consume beyond their means, but this is exactly the kind of “hard decision” you referenced earlier, and is to be made by free individuals, not government planners through trade restrictions and taxes. For it is exactly the consumption of raw materials by the developed world that will fuel the rise of living standards in the undeveloped world.
In summation, President Obama, I look forward to your inspiring leadership while the nation navigates choppy waters. I can also see that once out of your isolated Chicago-liberal bubble, you will see that conservative solutions are successful solutions. Please don’t forget the rightful place of the individual, limited government, and freedom of enterprise in our recovery. For it is through those elements that we will collectively reclaim our zenith.
Sincerely,
Matt at Zoominac.com
