With an increasing number of states declaring or introducing resolutions to declare sovereignty (21 according to my last check), the issue of federalism might finally start to be meaningfully discussed again. There is an air of revolution about, and the long-lost doctrine of state's rights might be a part of such a revolution.
So what is federalism anyway? Here is an extensive philosophical treatise on it, but it is more simply defined as a body of more or less self-governing entities collaborating to form a center of gravity that would have powers over areas concerning the entirety of the said bodies, such as national defense.
This was the original intent of the Founding Fathers as they set up the Constitution of the United States (though I am increasingly beginning to believe that a certain number of them, especially Alexander Hamilton, deliberately left loopholes in the Constitution to undermine this).
The federalism of the past has been replaced with a system of de facto unitary government, with the federal government being supreme and the states merely acting as its vassals. Nowhere is this more evident than in the unfunded mandates forced upon the states should they desire to get back some of the money sucked out of them by the feds. Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal rejecting the stimulus handout for his state is evidence that the states may finally be ready to fight back against federal mandates tied in with such funds. Whether Jindal's rejection has more to do with politics or principal remains to be seen.
Needless to say, the states being vassals and the feds acting as feudal lord is not the system that was envisioned by most of America's founders. The case is made by Thomas Jefferson in this short letter. Contrast this notion of popular sovereignty with the centralized autocratic state of today. The National Minimum Drinking Age Act is a perfect example that the states, rather than being the self-governing entities they were in the past have been reduced to a state of vassalage. For all of American history prior to that point, the drinking age was, as it should be, a state prerogative. When you read the article I mentioned above, notice how the feds set up a system of carrots and sticks to the states, as if they were mere serfs instead of the autonomous and sovereign bodies put forth in the constitution (though lessened from the Articles of Confederation).
While the NMDA attached penalties to states that did not raise their drinking ages, in essence paying lip service to such things being the prerogative of the states and not the federal government, other bills give no heed whatsoever. Take for example a recent bill that has gun owners very concerned. H.R. 45 would essentially criminalize possession of any firearm without a novel little thing called a "Blair Holt License." (I love how politicians name bills after people who died in incidents, sensationalizing them in an attempt to create hysteria and take the moral high ground, as if their bills were not about controlling people!)
Where in the constitution do the feds get authority to issue such a license to ordinary citizens who want to exercise their right to bear arms (or issuing "Federal Firearms Licenses") to owners of gun shops? Stretching the commerce clause to the limit again?
The simple answer is that the feds for the most part are power hungry thugs. They will look for any opportunity to expand their power and then cite this as a reason why they need to be re-elected, skirting around the constitution in any possible way they can in the process.
This is the present situation, and it is here and now that some bold state legislators are finally entering the fray. The New Hampshire Sovereignty Resolution is one of the strongest out there opposing unconstitutional federal power. (Although it has since been killed, it is a step in the right direction, and ideas always advance over time, and resolutions are still pending in many other states!)
So where do state rights and prerogatives come from anyway? The most obvious examples of course are the ninth and tenth amendments, ratified in the federal (not unitary) spirit of late 18th century America. These two amendments attempted to make certain that certain rights were not denied and were reserved to the states and people. The last two amendments in the Bill of Rights were essential to some states agreeing to the federal compact.
But a deeper philosophical question ought to be asked here? Where did the federal government come from anyway? What gives the it its power and authority? The average person would probably says "the constitution." However, this is not an adequate answer and begs the question.
The answer is of course, found in the preamble, "We the People." However, now the question needs to be raised as to how We the People ratified the constitution. The constitution was ratified by the people acting through their elected representatives in the state in which they resided. Take the Virginia ratification, for example.
In essence, the people, acting through the states, created the federal government, and it was always understood that the states were to be the primary means by which the people would have their say, as that is where most of the power was supposed to reside except for the few specialized instances put into the constitution through Article 1, Section 8).
Now we must come to the conclusion that the federal government is a creature of the people and the states, not the other way around. It is not, and never was supposed to be a unitary authority that dictates people's private lives and tells state governments what to do. The created can never be more powerful than the creator.
The truth is that the people must put the federal beast back into its cage, and they must do this through the states (primarily). The states of course, are quite corrupt as well, and it will indeed be a true battle to take those back alone, but the sovereignty resolutions show that the states are on the right path.
Trying to get the feds under control through their own power system is for most purposes, a pipe dream. It is simply counter productive to hope for the feds to use their power more temperately, as we have seen recently with the election of Barack Obama. It is increasingly becoming clear through just the first few months of his administration that he will not change anything substantively and continue to feed the dangerous federal beast. People like Ron Paul are rare, and while they should always be encouraged, they will affect little change unless the people and states find the true meaning of federalism again.
Further Reading:
The 10th Amendment Center
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Monday, February 16, 2009
The Pale Blue Dot
Two days ago, the nineteenth anniversary of the taking of an iconic photograph passed. On February 14th, 1990, Voyager 1 was turned back one last time toward the solar system it was now on course to leave.
3.6 billion miles away, the cameras photographed the Sun and visible planets (Pluto and Mars were too small to see from that distance and Mercury was lost in the glare of the Sun).
Among those visible was the Earth. It showed up as a mere blue pixel at such a huge distance. For the first time, humanity was now able to see visually what Copernicus and Galileo had proven centuries earlier: that humanity was far from the center of the universe and that for all intents and purposes, we are insignificant in the grand scheme of things.
However, there is one thing that ought to hit home about this photograph. We might indeed be insignificant overall, but so far, we as humans are very unique in the universe as the only intelligent civilization on the only planet that is known so far to have life on it. Carl Sagan had some memorable words to deliver on the subject of this dichotomy:
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
That passage of Sagan's instantly made me think of the state and statism as being the primary cause of all of humankind's problems. Surely, the abolition of the state will not end violence and misunderstanding among man, as man is a fallible creature. However, the biggest problem among humanity and the primary cause of our division is undoubtedly the state.
The state actively promotes this misunderstanding by violently forcing people to live in a certain way. Every individual's morals, beliefs, hopes, and dreams, are different. The state ignores this fact with its violent monopoly. It forces the individuals the it claims jurisdiction over to conform to its wishes. To solidify its power base, the ruling class that the state fosters often invokes a spirit of the greatness of a certain group to demonize outsiders or members of a different ethnic group or class. The "endless cruelties" that Sagan spoke of inevitably follows. We saw this recently in Rwanda in 1994, and more recently, in Sudan in the present day. For more historical examples, we ought to look toward the Rape of Nanking in World War II and the atrocities of the French Revolution.
There are countless other examples, but I cited these to show that the "cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of this pixel on the scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner" are not just the work of Europeans and their descendants against non-Westerners as the current vogue of political correctness would have so many people believe. The problem is not one group of people, the problem is the ideology of collectivism, and the institution of a state is the ultimate expression of collectivism.
By legitimizing the initiation of violence and instituting group thinking, the inevitable result will be violence in favor of one group or another, with the perceived inferiors or outsiders suffering. Statism is responsible for every atrocity and tragic war in recorded history. It is a religion that demands constant blood sacrifice. This is all in the name of attaining some perceived good, of course. In ancient times, this was such things as bringing "civilization" to the "barbarians," or more brazenly, the glory of conquest.
Of course, these things still very much exist, only now they are disguised in more likable language, such as "freeing people from tyranny" or "spreading democracy around the globe."
The problem is, even to those that are good intentioned about such things, in essence this is telling other people how to live. Thus it falls into the same trap- collectivism. Those who disagree over how the state tells them to live must then be sacrificed in the name of the so-called majority that the state serves (in reality, in the interest of the state itself, and the of the ruling class that it fosters.) Inevitably, those whose way of life is being threatened will fight back, as we've seen from the 300 Spartans to Sitting Bull at the Battle of the Little Big Horn.
The state has always- and will always, cause needless bloodshed. It will always divide people into different groups and then favor one over another. This is why the Pale Blue Dot has been tainted so red with blood over the eons.
Humanity must come to the realization that there is no right way to live, except to live nonviolently. You or me cannot tell Jane what she must value, how she must raise her children, or what she must do with her money (though we may attempt to use the power of friendly persuasion). If such a thing was attempted Jane would laugh in our face, and if we persisted and brought some guns in, she'd probably get exceedingly angry and only grudgingly accept our values because of the violence we threaten her with.
This most people would generally agree with, but why then do they accept that kings or committees can do what we ourselves cannot? This is an utter absurdity. It is this tension that results from the organized violence of the state that has proven so tragic over history.
It is long past due that humanity emphatically reject collectivism, and its extension, the state, in all its forms. We must recognize the fact that we belong to only one distinction: individual human beings who live on Planet Earth. "Only then can we deal more kindly with one another through mutual understanding rather than pointing guns in each other's faces, and preserve and cherish the Pale Blue Dot."
3.6 billion miles away, the cameras photographed the Sun and visible planets (Pluto and Mars were too small to see from that distance and Mercury was lost in the glare of the Sun).
Among those visible was the Earth. It showed up as a mere blue pixel at such a huge distance. For the first time, humanity was now able to see visually what Copernicus and Galileo had proven centuries earlier: that humanity was far from the center of the universe and that for all intents and purposes, we are insignificant in the grand scheme of things.
However, there is one thing that ought to hit home about this photograph. We might indeed be insignificant overall, but so far, we as humans are very unique in the universe as the only intelligent civilization on the only planet that is known so far to have life on it. Carl Sagan had some memorable words to deliver on the subject of this dichotomy:
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of this pixel on the scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner, how frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds.
Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.
The Earth is the only world known so far to harbor life. There is nowhere else, at least in the near future, to which our species could migrate. Visit, yes. Settle, not yet. Like it or not, for the moment the Earth is where we make our stand.
It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character-building experience. There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known.
That passage of Sagan's instantly made me think of the state and statism as being the primary cause of all of humankind's problems. Surely, the abolition of the state will not end violence and misunderstanding among man, as man is a fallible creature. However, the biggest problem among humanity and the primary cause of our division is undoubtedly the state.
The state actively promotes this misunderstanding by violently forcing people to live in a certain way. Every individual's morals, beliefs, hopes, and dreams, are different. The state ignores this fact with its violent monopoly. It forces the individuals the it claims jurisdiction over to conform to its wishes. To solidify its power base, the ruling class that the state fosters often invokes a spirit of the greatness of a certain group to demonize outsiders or members of a different ethnic group or class. The "endless cruelties" that Sagan spoke of inevitably follows. We saw this recently in Rwanda in 1994, and more recently, in Sudan in the present day. For more historical examples, we ought to look toward the Rape of Nanking in World War II and the atrocities of the French Revolution.
There are countless other examples, but I cited these to show that the "cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of this pixel on the scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner" are not just the work of Europeans and their descendants against non-Westerners as the current vogue of political correctness would have so many people believe. The problem is not one group of people, the problem is the ideology of collectivism, and the institution of a state is the ultimate expression of collectivism.
By legitimizing the initiation of violence and instituting group thinking, the inevitable result will be violence in favor of one group or another, with the perceived inferiors or outsiders suffering. Statism is responsible for every atrocity and tragic war in recorded history. It is a religion that demands constant blood sacrifice. This is all in the name of attaining some perceived good, of course. In ancient times, this was such things as bringing "civilization" to the "barbarians," or more brazenly, the glory of conquest.
Of course, these things still very much exist, only now they are disguised in more likable language, such as "freeing people from tyranny" or "spreading democracy around the globe."
The problem is, even to those that are good intentioned about such things, in essence this is telling other people how to live. Thus it falls into the same trap- collectivism. Those who disagree over how the state tells them to live must then be sacrificed in the name of the so-called majority that the state serves (in reality, in the interest of the state itself, and the of the ruling class that it fosters.) Inevitably, those whose way of life is being threatened will fight back, as we've seen from the 300 Spartans to Sitting Bull at the Battle of the Little Big Horn.
The state has always- and will always, cause needless bloodshed. It will always divide people into different groups and then favor one over another. This is why the Pale Blue Dot has been tainted so red with blood over the eons.
Humanity must come to the realization that there is no right way to live, except to live nonviolently. You or me cannot tell Jane what she must value, how she must raise her children, or what she must do with her money (though we may attempt to use the power of friendly persuasion). If such a thing was attempted Jane would laugh in our face, and if we persisted and brought some guns in, she'd probably get exceedingly angry and only grudgingly accept our values because of the violence we threaten her with.
This most people would generally agree with, but why then do they accept that kings or committees can do what we ourselves cannot? This is an utter absurdity. It is this tension that results from the organized violence of the state that has proven so tragic over history.
It is long past due that humanity emphatically reject collectivism, and its extension, the state, in all its forms. We must recognize the fact that we belong to only one distinction: individual human beings who live on Planet Earth. "Only then can we deal more kindly with one another through mutual understanding rather than pointing guns in each other's faces, and preserve and cherish the Pale Blue Dot."
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
24: Season Seven and Non-Intervention
24 is probably one of the most controversial television shows out there. The fact that it has given popular credence to torture to prevent terrorism has drawn both praises and accusations that the show's creators are sympathetic to the heatedly-debated anti-terror initiatives of the Bush Administration. I have not looked at the politics and ethics involved in the show, as I realize that it is a work of fiction, and is surprisingly very entertaining to me, even though I am a staunch libertarian.
However this season is shaping up to be very different, as it is a radical shift from the previous seasons. CTU has been disbanded, and instead of taking place in Los Angeles, the action is now in Washington D.C. The biggest difference however, is in the terrorist threat. Instead of using external weapons of mass destruction, the terrorists hijacked a module (called a CIP device) that allows for breaches of the government's firewall systems to cause massive damage internally. The conspiracy (which includes members of the President's own staff) is led by a Colonel Ike Dubaku of the fictional country of Sangala, who in the last episode was stopped by Jack Bauer & Crew just in the nick of time before he killed tens of thousands of Americans by using the hacking module to release toxins from an insecticide plant in Ohio.
The reasons for Colonel Dubaku's aggression are very simple in this season, far from the complicated self-rightousness of the threats in previous seasons. Dubaku is angered about America's interventionism in his country of Sangala.
The events of season seven so far ought to give further credence in the argument for a non-interventionist foreign policy as advocated by America's Founding Fathers.
President Taylor has an armada on the African coast, ready to invade Sangala and forcibly evict the sitting regime, which is carrying out a genocide on hundreds of thousands of Sangalans. The armada causes Dubaku to enter the United States and bribe government officials with diamonds. He then gets ready to kill American citizens.
This is the classic example of the CIA's term of 'blowback' that Ron Paul cited so frequently in his 2007-8 campaign for the presidency. While we as Americans in no way sympathize with Dubaku (and more importantly, his real life counterparts), what ought to be the U.S. government's priorities?
The reason a government supposedly is set up is to protect the people living within its borders from aggression. This is the only reason the Founders set government up and wrote the Constitution. Even in today's age of Democratic-Socialism and pervasive dependence on the government for nearly anything imaginable, the core premise for its existence is still, fortunately, the Enlightenment ideal that it is a necessary evil to protect individuals against aggressors.
Yet in 24: Season Seven, we once again see how flimsy this notion is, and it is once again turned on its head. The United States government has again stuck its big nose where it did not belong, which fostered resentment resulting in a strike to the said nose. Unfortunately, it is the innocent American people who now must suffer because of their misguided government.
I reiterate that we should never sympathize with people like Dubaku who are causing the deaths of innocent people in a foreign land. However, the United States government is mandated to protect the American people through the Constitution, and nowhere in that document is permission given to the President to send an overseas armada to a foreign country without a congressional declaration of war.
In 24: Season Seven, war was not declared on Sangala, and I find nowhere in the events leading up to the season that it had anything to do with United States national security. What I am able to deduce so far is that the president unilaterally sent an armada to Sangala to stop Dubaku's faction from continuing to destroy innocent life.
While this is indeed, a noble purpose, it is not authorized under the Constitution, and more importantly, has nothing to do with U.S. national security. However, due to the government's foreign involvement, it becomes a matter of national security when the terrorists then come to kill Americans as a response!
To put it more simply: the government created the problem, then Dubaku reacted and actually threatened Americans. Now, the government has to solve the problems that it created!
Unfortunately, this isn't just a work of fiction. This is happening in real life, right now. This is what caused the attacks of September 11th and started the "War on Terror" (which is only adding fuel to the fire).
For too long, the United States has told the people of the world what to do and how to live. We see this perfectly in Iraq by trying to bring American "democracy" to that country. It is certainly not surprising that many people see this as a foreign invader that is occupying their country and taking control. Naturally, this is going to generate resentment, and all too often, violence to protect themselves against what they (the people in the countries America sends troops to or controls via proxy) see as aggression on their way of life.
This should not be difficult for us to understand. Americans went through the same thing. We call it the American Revolution. The colonists were unhappy with new taxes, and mounted their protests against them. The British government responded with ever-increasing authoritarianism, highlighted by the Intolerable Acts.
The most vile of these was the Massachusetts Government Act. This made self-government nearly impossible, and it is not surprising that the rest of the colonies sympathized with Massachusetts and recognized that their way of life was also under threat. The first Continental Congress met to discuss this fact in July of 1774. A mere nine months later, the first shots were exchanged at Lexington and Concord, igniting the war of independence.
The insurgency in Iraq is a modern example that ought to show that a foreign power attempting to tell a population how to live has historically gone very wrong and led to much bloodshed. The local populace is deeply resentful of the interference in their lives, and often enough will lead to radicalization, as we saw in the American Revolution with the Patriots eventually unanimously supporting independence from Britain (which was a radical measure and unthinkable even in the Continental Congress of 1774). Similarly, our invasion of Iraq has led to the radicalization of Iraqis in the insurgency in the present.
It ought to have come as no surprise that the attacks of 9/11 occurred. America's imperial presence in the Middle East since the Shah was installed in Iran in 1953 fostered radicalization that led to the deaths of innocent civilians. What's worse, instead of reassessing foreign policy after 9/11, the same imperial trend accelerated in the invasion of Iraq, leading to a greater possibility of other attacks in the future. The effort to prevent these attacks has eroded our civil liberties, all in the name of empire.
One thing that nearly made me fall out of my seat when watching 24: Season Seven was when President Taylor, on explaining her willingness to move forward with the invasion of Sangala even after Dubaku used the CIP device to cause a mid-air collision between two commercial airliners, and threatened an even greater attack, used the reasoning that she was "determined to keep America as a force for good in the world."
We must always watch out with those sorts of statements. No one can clearly define what 'good' is, as it is something very much in the eye of the beholder. This, coupled with the violent nature of government, means forceful conformity to a certain view of 'good,' in effect, telling other people how to live.
The result, as already explained, has been an endless cycle of aggression and backlash. Government cannot decide what 'good' is and then force people to conform to that view. Only an individual can decide this for himself, and then try to persuade others to that view. While most of us would agree that people like Dubaku and what he represents must not be supported, the government forcing us to that view can only create problems, as we are now seeing in the events of this season of 24.
Is it worth it to "keep America as a force for good in the world" even though the consequences may be untold destruction of American lives and the degradation of civil liberties that will surely be done in the name of preventing another such circumstance?
I think not.
However this season is shaping up to be very different, as it is a radical shift from the previous seasons. CTU has been disbanded, and instead of taking place in Los Angeles, the action is now in Washington D.C. The biggest difference however, is in the terrorist threat. Instead of using external weapons of mass destruction, the terrorists hijacked a module (called a CIP device) that allows for breaches of the government's firewall systems to cause massive damage internally. The conspiracy (which includes members of the President's own staff) is led by a Colonel Ike Dubaku of the fictional country of Sangala, who in the last episode was stopped by Jack Bauer & Crew just in the nick of time before he killed tens of thousands of Americans by using the hacking module to release toxins from an insecticide plant in Ohio.
The reasons for Colonel Dubaku's aggression are very simple in this season, far from the complicated self-rightousness of the threats in previous seasons. Dubaku is angered about America's interventionism in his country of Sangala.
The events of season seven so far ought to give further credence in the argument for a non-interventionist foreign policy as advocated by America's Founding Fathers.
President Taylor has an armada on the African coast, ready to invade Sangala and forcibly evict the sitting regime, which is carrying out a genocide on hundreds of thousands of Sangalans. The armada causes Dubaku to enter the United States and bribe government officials with diamonds. He then gets ready to kill American citizens.
This is the classic example of the CIA's term of 'blowback' that Ron Paul cited so frequently in his 2007-8 campaign for the presidency. While we as Americans in no way sympathize with Dubaku (and more importantly, his real life counterparts), what ought to be the U.S. government's priorities?
The reason a government supposedly is set up is to protect the people living within its borders from aggression. This is the only reason the Founders set government up and wrote the Constitution. Even in today's age of Democratic-Socialism and pervasive dependence on the government for nearly anything imaginable, the core premise for its existence is still, fortunately, the Enlightenment ideal that it is a necessary evil to protect individuals against aggressors.
Yet in 24: Season Seven, we once again see how flimsy this notion is, and it is once again turned on its head. The United States government has again stuck its big nose where it did not belong, which fostered resentment resulting in a strike to the said nose. Unfortunately, it is the innocent American people who now must suffer because of their misguided government.
I reiterate that we should never sympathize with people like Dubaku who are causing the deaths of innocent people in a foreign land. However, the United States government is mandated to protect the American people through the Constitution, and nowhere in that document is permission given to the President to send an overseas armada to a foreign country without a congressional declaration of war.
In 24: Season Seven, war was not declared on Sangala, and I find nowhere in the events leading up to the season that it had anything to do with United States national security. What I am able to deduce so far is that the president unilaterally sent an armada to Sangala to stop Dubaku's faction from continuing to destroy innocent life.
While this is indeed, a noble purpose, it is not authorized under the Constitution, and more importantly, has nothing to do with U.S. national security. However, due to the government's foreign involvement, it becomes a matter of national security when the terrorists then come to kill Americans as a response!
To put it more simply: the government created the problem, then Dubaku reacted and actually threatened Americans. Now, the government has to solve the problems that it created!
Unfortunately, this isn't just a work of fiction. This is happening in real life, right now. This is what caused the attacks of September 11th and started the "War on Terror" (which is only adding fuel to the fire).
For too long, the United States has told the people of the world what to do and how to live. We see this perfectly in Iraq by trying to bring American "democracy" to that country. It is certainly not surprising that many people see this as a foreign invader that is occupying their country and taking control. Naturally, this is going to generate resentment, and all too often, violence to protect themselves against what they (the people in the countries America sends troops to or controls via proxy) see as aggression on their way of life.
This should not be difficult for us to understand. Americans went through the same thing. We call it the American Revolution. The colonists were unhappy with new taxes, and mounted their protests against them. The British government responded with ever-increasing authoritarianism, highlighted by the Intolerable Acts.
The most vile of these was the Massachusetts Government Act. This made self-government nearly impossible, and it is not surprising that the rest of the colonies sympathized with Massachusetts and recognized that their way of life was also under threat. The first Continental Congress met to discuss this fact in July of 1774. A mere nine months later, the first shots were exchanged at Lexington and Concord, igniting the war of independence.
The insurgency in Iraq is a modern example that ought to show that a foreign power attempting to tell a population how to live has historically gone very wrong and led to much bloodshed. The local populace is deeply resentful of the interference in their lives, and often enough will lead to radicalization, as we saw in the American Revolution with the Patriots eventually unanimously supporting independence from Britain (which was a radical measure and unthinkable even in the Continental Congress of 1774). Similarly, our invasion of Iraq has led to the radicalization of Iraqis in the insurgency in the present.
It ought to have come as no surprise that the attacks of 9/11 occurred. America's imperial presence in the Middle East since the Shah was installed in Iran in 1953 fostered radicalization that led to the deaths of innocent civilians. What's worse, instead of reassessing foreign policy after 9/11, the same imperial trend accelerated in the invasion of Iraq, leading to a greater possibility of other attacks in the future. The effort to prevent these attacks has eroded our civil liberties, all in the name of empire.
One thing that nearly made me fall out of my seat when watching 24: Season Seven was when President Taylor, on explaining her willingness to move forward with the invasion of Sangala even after Dubaku used the CIP device to cause a mid-air collision between two commercial airliners, and threatened an even greater attack, used the reasoning that she was "determined to keep America as a force for good in the world."
We must always watch out with those sorts of statements. No one can clearly define what 'good' is, as it is something very much in the eye of the beholder. This, coupled with the violent nature of government, means forceful conformity to a certain view of 'good,' in effect, telling other people how to live.
The result, as already explained, has been an endless cycle of aggression and backlash. Government cannot decide what 'good' is and then force people to conform to that view. Only an individual can decide this for himself, and then try to persuade others to that view. While most of us would agree that people like Dubaku and what he represents must not be supported, the government forcing us to that view can only create problems, as we are now seeing in the events of this season of 24.
Is it worth it to "keep America as a force for good in the world" even though the consequences may be untold destruction of American lives and the degradation of civil liberties that will surely be done in the name of preventing another such circumstance?
I think not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
