Awww, you knew I’d have to bite on this bait!
(Was that a collective, “Oh,
Jeez!” I just heard?)
Mort,
I like your argument that guns stop tyranny. It’s a good one. It’s the one I
believe in the most! However, I don’t think it needs to be the only arrow in
our quiver. As you thoughtfully point out, if repeating “Second Amendment!”
over and over works, let’s use it. I’m for using any moral argument that
works.
As John/az2 pointed out on another thread, we all have our own approach to
the search for freedom. Libertarianism means many different things - even to
Libertarians - just as the members of ANY party have different values and
priorities. NO party will provide 100% of our personal philosophy so, if we
are going to support ANY party, we have to pick the one that helps us the
most and hurts us the least.
Libertarians believe you should be left alone as much as possible unless you are
infringing upon someone else or need and request help from the state.
ANY argument can be picked apart by the adult version of the child’s game of
“Why?” Years ago, in college, I stepped out of the dorm and said (as best I
remember), “Boy, what a pretty day!” Immediately I was set upon by the class
“debunker”. He explained that “pretty” is a value judgment, therefore invalid.
If all days were bright and sunny, we would all starve to death because crops
could not grow. The temperature may seem pleasing to me, but that is only
because I was properly dressed for the weather. How selfish I was to present
such a day as “pretty”. (etc. etc. and so forth)
In the name of “questioning”, people such as Mike Huben usually tear down
beliefs for the sake of tearing them down and intimidating others. To his
credit, Mr. Huben provides an alternative to Libertarian beliefs. Unfortunately,
his alternative appears to be Socialism.
-------
Huben: “The editor and primary author, Mike Huben, has 20 years experience
in debate over electronic networks. Much of that has been with religious
believers and creationists, and this colors some of the arguments and examples.
No judgement or personal offense is intended, though there is a substantial
amount of ridicule of arguments (based in large part on my belief that it is the
most effective antidote to pompous argument.)”
Dennis: You can’t have it both ways. Using ridicule as a weapon, calling our
beliefs “pompous”, and then saying “no offense” reveals both your hypocrisy
and your belief that rhetoric supersedes substance.
-------
Huben calls Libertarians, “...anarcho-capitalists (who want to eliminate
political governments) and minarchists (who want to minimize government.)”
His name calling apparently serves the two goals of proving his qualifications
(intelligence and schooling) and demonizing the opposition thereby devaluing their
beliefs.
D: Libertarians are NOT “anarcho-capitalists” who want to eliminate
government. However, we don’t think there should be federal laws governing
the size of our toilet tanks or governing the positions we use when making love
to our spouses.
D: Libertarians may be “minarchists” - people who would like to see less
government. Mr. Huben, however, wants more and more governmental
control over the individual. (stay tuned.)
-------
Huben states, “...the best way to interpret the constitution is the way the
founders explicitly specified in the Constitution: look to the courts, especially
the Supreme Court. The Constitution leaves the method of its interpretation by
the court entirely to the court to decide. This begs the question of how to
judge the interpretive philosophies of the possible justices, but libertarians
seldom get that far.”
D: In ANY legal interpretation of law, it is NOT only the wording of the law
which is addressed. The legislators’
intent of the law is used by the
courts to achieve a deeper understanding of the legal intent of the law. Refer
to the comments by the judge in virtually any court case.
D: Libertarians not only “get that far”, they do so in the face of the courts’
refusal to do honest research. The courts who interpret “the Right of the
People” to mean a government entity ONLY in the case of the Second
Amendment use this inconsistent interpretation in their blatant attempt to
achieve governmental supervision and control of the individual citizen.
--------
Huben: "The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of
the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a
fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well
as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body."
Federalist No. 78.
D: Notice the Federalist quote, but no anti-Federalist response.
-------
Huben: “There is no reason short of worship of the founders to presume that
the Supreme Court is less capable than the founders. Indeed, many libertarians
from outside the US find the authority of the founders unconvincing. One
writes: "As a Canadian, I don't give a _damn_ what the `founders' intended. I
hate it when a net.opponent trots out some bit of tired U.S. history as a most
holy of holies, not to be questioned."
D: I disagree with your belittling approach of our founders. The founders established a new, unique FORM of government which could be kept in control by the governed. All other forms of government, including the
Canadian, give control to the government which doles out (or refuses) “privileges” to the subjects. Our government was intended to preserve the rights of the people giving only necessary power to the government. We are diametrically opposed in our vision of the desirable political state.
D: Huben would have the Supreme Court opinions supersede the ideals of the
founding fathers. I disagree. The founders fought and won independence for
our country. The Supreme Court repeatedly has refused to address the
scandalous legislative attacks on our freedoms. Supreme Court Justices can
not be voted in or out of office - they are NOT elected by the people and do
not answer to the people. Therefore, we must reform the Legislative and
Executive Branches with our votes. By doing that, we eventually can reform
the Supreme Court as well.
D: As for Mr./Ms. Canadian, enjoy or give up your freedoms as you wish.
Frankly, what you perceive to be a social contract, I perceive to be
governmental paternalism. Had you bothered to perceive the intent of our
American founders you might have your gun rights intact. Wait and see what
else you lose! Canadian political chauvinism is no example for the U.S. to
follow.
-------
Huben: “Jefferson himself said this plainly: ‘Some men look at constitutions
with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too
sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom
more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment... laws
and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind... as
that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made,
institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times.... We might as well
require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized
society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.’”
D: Any attempt to portray Jefferson as a Socialist is ludicrous. He, even as a
(reluctant) slave-holder, valued the individual over the political entity of the
state.
-------
Huben: “The foremost defenders of our freedoms and rights, which
libertarians prefer you overlook, are our governments. National defense,
police, courts, registries of deeds, public defenders, the Constitution and the
Bill Of Rights, etc. all are government efforts that work towards defending
freedoms and rights.
Libertarians frequently try to present themselves as the group to join to defend
your freedom and rights. Lots of other organizations (many of which you
would not want to be associated with, such as Scientologists) also fight for
freedom and rights. I prefer the ACLU. “
D: Libertarians do NOT overlook the power of the government to protect our
rights. When governments defend our freedoms, they are only doing their job.
D: We DO believe the government needlessly and recklessly entangles us in
treaties and conflicts which frequently cost American lives without serving
American interests.
D: Libertarians also remember what Huben refuses to address! More people
have been killed by their own governments than in all foreign conflicts
combined. Huben completely disregards the inconsistency and perfidy of the
ACLU and implies the citizen/subject should do the same.
-------
Huben addresses “Taxation is theft.”
Huben: “Two simple rebuttals to this take widely different approaches.
The first is that property is theft. The notion behind property is that A declares
something to be property, and threatens anybody who still wants to use it.
Where does A get the right to forcibly stop others from using it? Arguments
about "mixing of labor" with the resource as a basis for ownership boil down
to "first-come-first-served". This criticism is even accepted by some
libertarians, and is favorably viewed by David Friedman. This justifies property
taxes or extraction taxes on land or extractable resources if you presume that
the government is a holder in trust for natural resources. (However, most
people who question the creation of property would agree that after the
creation of property, a person is entitled to his earnings. Thus the second
argument)
The second is that taxation is part of a social contract. Essentially, tax is
payment in exchange for services from government. This kind of argument is
suitable for defending almost any tax as part of a contract. Many libertarians
accept social contract (for example, essentially all minarchists must to insist on
a monopoly of government.) Of course they differ as to what should be IN the
contract.
D: If the government is a holder in trust for natural resources, then it is the
right of the government to tell us what trees we may keep or chop down, what
water and how much water we may use, whether we must heat with electricity,
oil, or gas, etc. etc. Where would this all stop?
D: By revealing his contempt of private ownership, he begins to clarify his
goals. Notice the introduction of the “social contract”. He develops this
theme.
-------
Huben: “Social Contract? I never signed no steenking social contract.”
D: Disregarding his ethic slur, let’s follow Huben’s thoughts. Huben says,
“The constitution and the laws are our written contracts with the government.”
Huben explains that our parents contracted for us by choosing residency and
citizenship and states, “No further explicit action is required on your part to
continue the agreement, and you may end it at any time by departing and
renouncing your citizenship.” He implies that citizens have unquestioned
subservience to the Constitution, as interpreted by others, as modified by
others, as implemented by others. However, he never mentions any similar
obligation OF the government to its citizen/subjects.
-------
Huben likens the social contract to an apartment lease or the purchase of a
condo. “ You have a contract with the condominium association, agreeing to
pay the fees they levy for the services they provide and obey the rules that they
create. You have an equal vote with the other residents on the budget and the
rules. If you don't like the budget or rules that are enacted, you can vote with
your feet or persuade everyone to change them.”
Huben: “There are numerous other common sorts of contracts that allow
changes by one or both sides without negotiation. Gas, electric, oil, water,
phone, and other utility services normally have contracts where at most they
need to notify you in advance when they change their rates. Insurance
companies raise their rates, and your only input is either pay the new rates or
"vote with your feet". (The exception is when rates are supervised by
government regulatory agencies.)”
D: Huben thereby indicates that a government has the power to modify any
social contract with or without input from the citizens. Let that sink in for a
moment. That’s giving total control to the government and none to the
citizens.
-------
Huben asserts the government effectively owns all land. This is a direct, unaltered quote. “The landowner owns
the land (in a limited sense.) And the US government owns rights to govern its
territory. (These rights are a form of property, much as mineral rights are a
form of property. Let's not confuse them with rights of individuals.) Thus, the
social contract can be required by the territorial property holder: the USA. ...
since absolute ownership of property is fundamental to most flavors of
libertarianism. Such propertarianism fuels daydreams of being able to force the
rest of the world to swirl around the immovable rock of your property. ... For
example, there were trespass lawsuits filed against airlines for flying over
property. A good answer is: what makes you so sure it is yours?”
D: So much for private ownership of your land. Aha! Now I understand how
and why the government charges me rent each year on my land - I don’t own
anything! I’m merely renting!!
-------
Huben states, “’Self government’ is libertarian newspeak for ‘everybody ought
to be able to live as if they are the only human in the universe...’”
D: That’s a lie and he knows it. Libertarians respect the rights, beliefs, and
actions of other citizens so long as they do not unnecessarily infringe upon the
rights of others.
--------------------------
Huben’s views are typical of academicians who think themselves into a trance
and expect us to become entranced by their rhetoric. His epistle indicates we,
as citizens, are subjects of the government.
Sorry, Charlie. I am an American - not a Socialist.
I believe governments are established by citizens to accomplish certain mutual
benefits for the citizens.
I believe in the rights of the “We the People”.
I believe government is the servant of the people, not the master of the people.
-------
Mort,
You have a good point that we should not rely ONLY upon the intent of our forefathers. However, unless and until someone can show me a better form of government than what the founding fathers envisioned, I will support their ideals as the best possible political state.
[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited August 05, 1999).]
and that you would respond better than I ever could. Tell Huben this stuff! He may have to write a "Non-Dennis FAQ" just to refute your logic. Your political ideology would be suitably cubbyholed and hyphenated, of course, before it was torn to pieces.
)