mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I think it depends on the interpretation of Freedom. I disagree with TGGR, that Laws are necessary for Freedom... it appears to me that they are necessary for a somewhat safe and functioning society, but those do not directly correlate with freedom.

So, the strong dominating the weak is freedom? 

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Perhaps. Though, it seems far more likely to me that if Lincoln would have treated those states as Free Agents, they would probably not have seceded.

Perhaps, but we'll never know.  They rebelled before he had a chance to do anything, whatsoever.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

as for the civil war and the free association of states, in principle i tend to agree, although in practice if the CSA had been allowed to persist, the 20th century would have been completely different for almost the entire planet, in many places for the worse.

In all ways for the worse.  The CSA was a study in barbarism.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I think it depends on the interpretation of Freedom. I disagree with TGGR, that Laws are necessary for Freedom... it appears to me that they are necessary for a somewhat safe and functioning society, but those do not directly correlate with freedom.

So, the strong dominating the weak is freedom? 

Exactly the opposite. ANY domination is a restriction of Freedom. It matters little if it is the Strong Warlord or the Strong Political Party. Anytime the Strong can make demands of the Weak, then the weak are not free.

What is implied by Law, who is rightly able to create Law and enforce that law on all people? If we argue that it is the strongest group that can force law over the weaker group (as seen in the Civil War), then there exists little difference between such a system and the worst sort of despotism. If we argue that it is the majority over the minority (such as with laws in the United States), ten we must determine where the magic number is for this mystical majority. For surely, two men do not have the right to take freedom away from one man. Do 20 have the right to take freedom from one man? Do 200? 2,000? 2,000,000? If it is a restriction of freedom when done by two, then it is a restriction of freedom when done by 2,000,000.

I am not stating that our society would be better off without laws, only that laws do not 'ensure freedom', they ensure safety, at the cost of freedom. A cost that most societies seem happy to pay.

Perhaps. Though, it seems far more likely to me that if Lincoln would have treated those states as Free Agents, they would probably not have seceded.

Perhaps, but we'll never know.  They rebelled before he had a chance to do anything, whatsoever.

And how, in a voluntary association, does one 'rebel'?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Exactly the opposite. ANY domination is a restriction of Freedom.

Then you need the rule of law.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

And how, in a voluntary association, does one 'rebel'?

Please point out where in the constitution the association is voluntary...because I can point out more than a couple of cases where it DOES mention rebellion. 

[The Good Reverend Roger]

If we argue that it is the majority over the minority (such as with laws in the United States),

That isn't how laws in the United States work.

Just saying.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

And how, in a voluntary association, does one 'rebel'?

Please point out where in the constitution the association is voluntary...because I can point out more than a couple of cases where it DOES mention rebellion. 

At the time of the Civil War, not more than a couple generations removed from our own 'Rebellion', I would point you to the position we held in the Declaration of Independence:

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. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

This is the position we held when we separated from England. ALL power of the government rests with the people. The people HAVE THE RIGHT to remove their consent from that government, alter it, abolish it and form a new one. This is exactly what the southern states did, and believed that it was their right.

The United States had held, since its inception with the Declaration, that this nation was governed on consent. Consent of the states, consent of the People. It stands to reason then, that if this consent were to be withdrawn (as the colonies did with England), then such a government could no longer rule those who did not consent.

This key issue was hotly debated in the years after the Revolution and before the Civil War. The only settlement to the issue was superior firepower and resources on the part of the North and, once the war was over the 14th Amendment and later Supreme Court rulings. In fact, when reading a number of historical political documents, its clear that many of the founding fathers, Jefferson and Madison wrote "The Kentucky and Virginia Resolves" which held that the United States was a Union of States, since state representatives ratified the Constitution... and that as such, States freely entered into association and could freely leave. Others, felt that States were only a bureaucratic solution to provide local services. However, at the time of the Civil War, there were no Citizens of the United States. There were citizens of Ohio, N.C., S.C., Virginia, etc. so it would seem a difficult argument to say that the US was a union of People, rather than a union of States.

If we argue that it is the majority over the minority (such as with laws in the United States),

That isn't how laws in the United States work.

Just saying.

Well, it is.

The majority vote, the representatives of the majority meet and create bills, those bills are ratified by other representatives of the majority and signed by the President, elected by the Majority.

Any law, except those upon which everyone has agreed, is either instated by the majority or by the powerful. In either situation, it is the strong (physically or politically) dominating the weak.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

Whether States should, ideally, be free to associate/dissociate isn't the point though. That's one of those cases where what seems like common sense to some people is just past the point of taking a thought too far for other people. If the CSA had been allowed to secede, even if that makes sense on some level of anti-Federalist thinking, it would have called into question the validity of the US Constitution. For reasons of national security it was best to keep the Union together -- with the constant threat of secession and the dissolution of the Union, no long-term national project or action could ever have taken place. The US would be reduced to a bunch of bickering, in-fighting States, and wouldn't have the capacity to do anything as a single nation, ever.

That means no victories in WW1 and WW2, no Civil Rights movement, no Universal Suffrage. When any state could at any moment say "fuck you, we'll just secede," it eliminates the possibility of moving the entire country through difficult stages. It might conflict to some degree with the idealism of the Revolution, but when you're talking about leading a real nation full of stupid people, sometimes you have to betray the ideals that  might allow more enlightened people to cope with hard times.

The same argument applies to the Rule of Law. There are way too many idiots running around trying to impose their will on other people as it is -- imagine if there were no strong government to stop at least the worst of these people from succeeding. It isn't perfect, and it's sliding backwards all the time, but that doesn't negate the fact that without a universal government you cannot have anywhere near universal enforcement of justice.

[Golden Applesauce]

I am not stating that our society would be better off without laws, only that laws do not 'ensure freedom', they ensure safety, at the cost of freedom. A cost that most societies seem happy to pay.

You can't have freedom without safety.  It can't fairly be said that I have the freedom to express my opinions if there is nothing to stop people from lynching me for it.  All you've done is traded rule of law for rule by violence.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I am not stating that our society would be better off without laws, only that laws do not 'ensure freedom', they ensure safety, at the cost of freedom. A cost that most societies seem happy to pay.

You can't have freedom without safety.  It can't fairly be said that I have the freedom to express my opinions if there is nothing to stop people from lynching me for it.  All you've done is traded rule of law for rule by violence.

I'm not arguing that anarchy is good, or better. Only that the rule of law (as implemented here and elsewhere) appears a tyranny, somewhat benign, perhaps, but a tyranny still. If all men have a natural freedom (the backbone of the Enlightenment and the foundation of the philosophy used in the creation of the United States) as an inalienable right, a right to self ownership, to call no man master, to seek their own route to happiness and to hold complete control over themselves and their possessions as long as their actions do not impinge upon the rights of others... then any law that he is placed under, without his first agreeing to it, is a reduction of his freedom.

How is it that each of them comes to be stripped of his natural, God-given rights, and to be incorporated, compressed, compacted, and consolidated into a mass with other men, whom he never saw; with whom he has no contract; and towards many of whom he has no sentiments but fear, hatred, or contempt? How does he become subjected to the control of men like himself, who, by nature, had no authority over him; but who command him to do this, and forbid him to do that, as if they were his sovereigns, and he their subject; and as if their wills and their interests were the only standards of his duties and his rights; and who compel him to submission under peril of confiscation, imprisonment, and death?

Society cannot exist without law, anarchy would surely reduce the amount of freedom that most people would experience. However, these truths don't mean that we are currently free... we're just far less molested by our Warlords.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Exactly the opposite. ANY domination is a restriction of Freedom. It matters little if it is the Strong Warlord or the Strong Political Party. Anytime the Strong can make demands of the Weak, then the weak are not free.

On the other hand, the idea of a republic is that the majority rule within the constraints of law.

Take your pic:  The rule of law, or anarchy.  Yes, you do have to choose.

The ONLY chance the weak have for freedom is under the rule of law.

I am not stating that our society would be better off without laws, only that laws do not 'ensure freedom', they ensure safety, at the cost of freedom. A cost that most societies seem happy to pay.

Nonsense.  Amendments II, IV, IX, and X promote freedom at the expense of security.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I'm not arguing that anarchy is good, or better. Only that the rule of law (as implemented here and elsewhere) appears a tyranny, somewhat benign, perhaps, but a tyranny still.

Sophistry.

Society cannot exist without law, anarchy would surely reduce the amount of freedom that most people would experience. However, these truths don't mean that we are currently free... we're just far less molested by our Warlords.

So you're saying that freedom is impossible. 

Meh.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Well, it is.

No, it isn't. 

The majority vote, the representatives of the majority meet and create bills, those bills are ratified by other representatives of the majority and signed by the President, elected by the Majority.

Um, yeah, you forgot about the part where the laws are subordinate to the constitution, regardless of the will of the majority.

Or are you one of those people who say that your inability to force your beliefs on others is a violation of your freedom?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

At the time of the Civil War, not more than a couple generations removed from our own 'Rebellion', I would point you to the position we held in the Declaration of Independence:

Amazingly enough, the DoI is not a US legal document or law.