American Political Philosopher, Author, and Musician
Check the pages for updates... interesting developments coming!


Trick or Treat?

            It’s nearing Halloween, 2013 in the United States of America.

            I’m struck by how apt the phrase “Trick or Treat” seems amid our current political struggles (if we’re Americans), and more broadly in the rest of the world.

           The government was recently shutdown (hallelujah) because the president insisted that TreasonCare® be funded or nothing- in spite of his Zeus-like bolts of exemption from the “grace” that is his healthcare scam to any special interest that meets his fancy. Indeed, he spent extra millions-of-our-dollars to block us from moving freely to view the open-air memorials to those who died to make us free from his type of shit.

            If that doesn’t boil your blood, then you’re not an American.

            What’s not encouraging are the two factions vying to defend “the American people” from these leftist encroachments on our liberty.

            There are the truly creepy-ass-crackers like John “No-Wonder-He-Got-Shot-Down” McCain and his ilk, who really seem to view the world around them as some type of political “poker”, where the game is to smile and bluff your way into as many chips (votes) as you can. Once the election is won, ostensibly, the victorious Republican Party would then implement its alternative vision of democratic utopia. The best you could say for them is that they seem to admire the crafty design and cunning of their “opponents”, and aim to beat them at their own game.

            One might like to believe that, as that’s the only barricade between them and the charge of outright stupidity. That would still make them failures, but at least you could entertain the idea that they may have had a plan.

            Then there are the new, Tea-Party republicans, led by Ted Cruz.

            I have to say, it is a ray of hope to have someone at least attempting to attack the rise of socialism in the home of the free. For him to stand there on the senate floor for 21 hours trying to communicate about the failures of ObamaCare was encouraging, finally.

            On the other hand, though I didn’t listen to the entire 21 hours, the parts that I did hear had too much in common with the RINOs. The comments were often political calculations, rather than reflections of principle.

            For example- Ted Cruz and many other prominent Tea-Party empathizers point\out how incompetent the rollout of ObamaScare® has been. They point to the widespread site-outages to show that the administration is “out of its league”, etc.

            While all of that is true, it’s not really relevant.

            To argue that at all is to imply that there is a different group of people who could implement it better. But there are no cloud-cities, no matter who is pouring the footings.

            The only argument that has relevance is the one I’m not hearing: The one about basic human morality.

            I’m not referring to religious morality. This is a question that comes before the question of faith.

            It’s about one individual in the universe, and his relationship to any other individual in that universe.

 

            Do you believe it is evil to use force against that other human being for purposes other than defense, or not?

 

            If, for you, the answer to that question is not “yes, the use of force against another individual for purposes other than defense is evil”, then you are either dangerously mentally ill, or just plain evil.

            Once we’ve been separated into two groups of people by that question, then the next question is how those of us who aren’t sick and evil will defend ourselves against those who are.

            This is difficult because people have been conditioned to accept that the government is supposed to be able to exert force against individuals based upon the outcome of democracy in all sorts of ways.

            In order to illustrate this more simply, let’s set aside for a moment something as complex as sabotaging the entire American health-care industry, and consider something much more basic: gambling.

            Even in the great “red” state of Texas, the current condition is that laws exist that prohibit people from playing games with one another for money.

            I find it astonishing that there are people even among those who would be vehemently against ObamaCare who think that the government either does or should have the power to tell human beings what games they can play or whether they can risk their money on them.

            I’ll hear random individuals and “conservative” talk-show hosts alike discuss the reasons they are for laws against gambling- all the while apparently believing these views are reasonable.

            How did we go from the idea of forming a government to “secure the blessings of liberty”, to a society where people think they get to vote on arbitrary rules that govern the lives of their neighbors?

            Many of these people think it’s important to limit the federal government, but that states are just big independent democracies that can do whatever they want to their citizens.

            This view is not only unconstitutional, it’s also violently unprincipled.

            A state has no more power under the Constitution to violate the liberties of its citizens than does the federal government.

            States do not have rights.

            Individual human beings have rights.

            States have a responsibility- and that is to make and enforce laws that secure the liberty of the people- just the same as the federal government.

            The scope of responsibilities is different between federal and state- but not the goal: the blessings of liberty.

 

            I was listening to Mark Steyn (filling in for Rush Limbaugh) the other day when a confident liberal called in to inform us all about the Constitution. He said it was clear that there was a number of purposes of government, and that one of them was “promoting the general welfare” and then he mumbled over “secure the blessings of liberty”.

            While it’s so rare when a socialist actually attempts to make a logical argument that you have to give them credit for that at least, the fact is this common argument is clearly illogical. The Constitution actually says “provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare AND secure the blessings of liberty.

            It doesn’t say “promote the general welfare OR secure the blessings of liberty”.

            Secondly- the phrase “blessings of liberty” is a statement of political philosophy. It means that good things happen when people are free. In fact, this point is so fundamental that the Constitution is focused on preserving and promoting it.

            So if a person were to believe that statement to be true- then “promoting the general welfare” would mean actions that help to bring about greater security of liberty, and therefore greater blessings. It’s only people who do not believe in the value of liberty that believe “promoting the general welfare” can be expressed by using force to limit liberty.

            So both the so-called republicans and the socialists agree that democracy can use force against sovereign individuals in the universe to manipulate us like game-pieces to fit whatever vision-for-the-future gets the most votes.

            Trick or treat?

            There don’t appear to be any principles in anybody’s bag.

           

            Let’s start fresh then, with a review of what the Consitution is supposed to mean, because it’s pretty simple:

 

            1. The purpose is to secure the liberty of individuals.

            2. No law can be made that doesn’t make sense. (no law may respect an establishment of religion)

 

            If you want to make a law that either isn’t for the purpose of securing liberty or doesn’t make sense, then you’re proposing a law that is unconstitutional.

            ObamaCare uses force against individuals to steal their property, among many other offenses,  and cannot be for the purpose of securing their liberty. 

            There is no reasoning that supports it- either in principle or in the estimations of its cost, or in its efficacy in obtaining purported results- and those conditions are violations of the First Amendment’s guarantee of separation of faith from law.

            ObamaCare is an expression of religion; and a truly evil religion at that. That’s what it is, and that’s what it should be called.

            Indeed, most republicans don’t see the first Amendment the way Jefferson and Madison saw it- as a mandate of reason-limited-law.       

            Basic logic dictates, however, that the omission of that meaning from the First Amendment leaves behind the form of pure democracy that leads us here. It’s that one little tiny idea that seems so obvious to me, but just seems like alien hieroglyphics to everyone else, as far as I can tell.

            Is REASON the standard of law, or not? If it’s not, then why bother with the pretense of government?

            If thousands of pages of “law” can be signed into existence without even being read by the legislators, then how does any concept of government either guide or check that power?

            Elena Kagan betrayed this crucial fundamental in her confirmation hearing, and NOBODY caught it, except for me. She said that “the question of whether a law is senseless is different than whether it is constitutional”.

 

            Few things in the world can truly be considered astounding, but that’s one of them.

            A Supreme Court nominee suggests that a senseless law can be constitutional, and then gets confirmed to the court.

            That question is at the direct crux of the issue- but no conservative can dare even notice it. Could it be that these “conservatives” don’t really like the shackles of reason on some of their own legislative ideas?

            How many republicans, for example, are really for abolishing publicly funded education, or ending drug prohibition, or, again, even repealing laws against gambling?            But all of these are expressions of the same philosophy: That one class of people can rightly force another into behaviors they may not have freely chosen, in a manner contrary to the purpose of defending individual liberty. These are all creations from people who believe that other individuals exist to be pawns on their chess boards, rather than sovereign individuals to be respected and left alone in peace.

            That’s flat-out tribalism- and that’s the type of force that the Constitution was established to defend against.

            Where is the party of reason, and what kind of coalition could be assembled under such a banner if it were promoted the way these pseudo parties are? (the sane party)

            If the average American believed that an unreasonable law is by that fact alone unconstitutional, or that any law that doesn’t secure their liberty were by that fact alone unconstitutional, then there would be 10 million people surrounding the white house right now, and congress would impeach this colossal parasite immediately, and then convict.

            But, people don’t think that way right now- not even in either of the factions of the Republican Party: the ones who are supposedly defending my liberty.

            I’m sick of hearing from people who claim to represent liberty, but are all for public education- as long as they can control it.

            I’m sick of hearing from people who are against ObamaCare, but all for drug prohibition.

            I’m sick of hearing from people who want to repeal ObamaCare, but think it’s perfectly reasonable to arrest or fine people who are playing a card game.

            I’m sick of hearing from republicans who claim to be for the Constitution- but claim it was all founded on Judeo-Christian “principles” (as if there were a such thing).

            All I care about at this point is people who understand that force for purposes other than defense is wrong, morally, and that reason is the standard of law.

            I don’t want leaders who don’t understand this, or who play games with the enemies of these principles.

            I don’t want to hear about how incompetent they are at implementing socialism.

            I don’t want to hear them being humanized in any way, because they’re inhuman.

            I want to hear them being attacked because their plans are evil and immoral, on principle.

            I want them to be vilified, because they are true villains.

            They should be publicly shamed and caste out like child molesters, because they’re even worse.

            They are the true monsters of civilization.

.            And then every single individual who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, and then supported these evil ideas should pay their debts to society for those high crimes.

2013 Kenneth Shipman

 


 

answers


The spine of the published version of my original manuscript



Copyright ©  2008    The American Tarot     all rights reserved