Your remark about the video clip of Justice Scalia, a man of breathtaking intellect, and a favorite jurist of mine, puts me in mind of another such brilliant judge, and hopefully, a future Supreme Court Justice, US Appeals Court Judge Janice Rogers Brown. She is a stalwart defender of private property rights against the encroachment of collectivism. Her two most famous speeches are “Fifty Ways to Lose Your Freedom” found here, and “A Whiter Shade of Pale” found here. Some samples:
Our problems, however, seem to go even deeper. It is not simply that the same words don’t have the same meanings; in our lifetime, words are ceasing to have any meaning. The culture of the word is being extinguished by the culture of the camera. Politicians no longer have positions they have photo-ops. To be or not to be is no longer the question. The question is: how do you feel.
Writing 50 years ago, F.A. Hayek warned us that a centrally planned economy is “The Road to Serfdom."3 He was right, of course; but the intervening years have shown us that there are many other roads to serfdom. In fact, it now appears that human nature is so constituted that, as in the days of empire all roads led to Rome; in the heyday of liberal democracy, all roads lead to slavery. And we no longer find slavery abhorrent. We embrace it. We demand more. Big government is not just the opiate of the masses. It is the opiate. The drug of choice for multinational corporations and single moms; for regulated industries and rugged Midwestern farmers and militant senior citizens.
It is my thesis today that the sheer tenacity of the collectivist impulse — whether you call it socialism or communism or altruism — has changed not only the meaning of our words, but the meaning of the Constitution, and the character of our people…
The founders viewed private property as “the guardian of every other right."9 But, “by 1890 we find Alfred Marshall, the teacher of John Maynard Keynes making the astounding claim that the need for private property reaches no deeper than the qualities of human nature."A hundred years later came Milton Friedman’s laconic reply: “ ‘I would say that goes pretty deep.’” In between, came the reign of socialism. “Starting with the formation of the Fabian Society and ending with the fall of the Berlin Wall, its ambitious project was the reformation of human nature. Intellectuals visualized a planned life without private property, mediated by the New Man."1 He never arrived. As John McGinnis persuasively argues: “There is simply a mismatch between collectivism on any large and enduring scale and our evolved nature. As Edward O. Wilson, the world’s foremost expert on ants, remarked about Marxism, ‘Wonderful theory. Wrong species.’”
Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates, and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible.
Enjoy!
Bat One - 03:05pm on 05/08/2008
I don’t think we ar every far off here.
I heard a report today that while the junta was generally OK with “UN” aid, they specifically did not want any “US” aid. In fact, any help from the United States military was particularly unwelcome b/c the junta is afraid of US military involvement in the “internal affairs” or Myanmar.
Given recent history of the affect of US military on despotic regimes (in Iraq and Afganistan), this is understandable. The funny thing is, I am sure there are a lot of Americans on the ideological left who agree with the junta.
Michael K. - 04:05pm on 05/08/2008
Michael K.,
On a larger scale, the whole question of UN/US aid for international disasters such as this is almost obscenely funny.
When Indian Ocean Tsunami hit in December of 2004, the Secretary General of the UN was on a skiing holiday in Montana (I believe) and could not be bothered to leave the slopes to deal with the crisis for 5 days. When he finally did return from his vacation, it took the UN another week of talks and meetings to determine what was to be done and how. The Secretary General’s first remarks were to castigate the US for its “miserly contribution”.
Meanwhile, the commander of US Forces in the Pacific immediately dispatched the nearest Navy vessels to the most distressed areas. Navy sailors and US Marines worked 24/7 delivering their own food, their own potable water, and their own medical supplies, setting up communications and rescuing refugees. Chopper pilots were given special exemptions to fly beyond normal DoD daily and monthly limits. Extra fuel, food, medical supplies, tents, cots, etc. were sent for and delivered. Military personnel put themselves and their mission in jeopardy to help victims whose language they could not speak simply because they were there and they could help those who needed the aid.
What the military junta in Burma does not comprehend, cannot comprehend, is that in a free society our military takes its direction from a freely elected, consensual civilian government.
Bat One - 07:05pm on 05/08/2008
Carrick nails it: you have to first determine if a government is legitimately sovereign before interference in it’s affairs can or can’t be called a breech of sovereignty. I have argued this before vis-a-vis the US invasion of Iraq.
If the UN - no matter how imperfectly - is starting to recognize that a legitimate government has a responsibility to its people and that abdication of that responsibility voids the presumption of sovereignty, then it is cause for celebration. I laud any positive steps they take in this direction, even if they are small and belated steps.
Seth Williams - 07:05pm on 05/08/2008
...you have to first determine if a government is legitimately sovereign before interference in it’s affairs can or can’t be called a breech of sovereignty.
Seth,
The larger and more difficult questions remain: Who is to make that determination, under what circumstances, and according what criteria? What is the authority under which these steps are undertaken, and who or what is to enforce such a decision?
If the UN is indeed taking the “small steps” you suggest, that may be a good thing… some day and under different circumstances. But given the present composition and organization of the UN, and the simple fact that the UN’s decision making process in terms of international affairs is not restricted to those governments that are demonstrably consensual, I think France’s suggestion that UN’s responsibility overrides any nation’s sovereignty sets a dangerous precedent absent the appropriate safeguards. I’m not at all comfortable with an “ends justifies the means” precedent in the hands of today’s United Nations.
Bat One - 08:05pm on 05/08/2008
Thanks Bat One!
dougee - 10:05pm on 05/08/2008
The rulers of Burma do not care how many people die. They have been forcing people into the coastal regions in their efforts to suppress groups who are fighting against them. Killing off a couple hundred thousand of them is a win/win for them. Just ask the Karen.
2Hotel9 - 03:05am on 05/09/2008
Things are only getting worse for the estimated 1.5 million cyclone victims.
YANGON, Myanmar (AP) - A U.N. official says the World
Food Program is suspending cyclone aid to Myanmar because its government seized supplies flown into the country.
He says the WFP has no choice but to suspend the shipments until the matter is resolved.
WFP spokesman Paul Risley said Friday that all “the food aid and equipment that we managed to get in has been confiscated.” The shipment included 38 tons of high-energy biscuits.
Risley said it is not clear why the material was seized.
Bat One - 05:05am on 05/09/2008
The current “rulers” of Burma give not one pile of steaming shit for the welfare of the people living in coastal regions. They have been actively forcing people out of the mountain regions and into the very areas which sustain the heaviest casualties in monsoon season.
A tactic as old as the hills.
As for the “rulers” of Burma stealing the relief supplies? Exactly who the hell is surprised in the least?
2Hotel9 - 05:05pm on 05/09/2008
At what point does an organization founded on the fundamental rule of law, violate both law and the sovereignty of another to assist those being brutally oppressed by a harsh, autocratic and largely lawless regime?
That’s the question alright. If the invasion of Iraq was legitimate then surely a relief effort backed by force if necessary passes the test as well.
Are the “good intentions” of those who would violate another country’s sovereignty sufficient to justify the violation?
I don’t think “good intentions” in themselves are enough. The Burma case seems pretty easy since most everyone agrees that victims of cyclones shouldn’t be denied aid simply because its government says so. It seems to me that some sort of consensus in favour of action is is required.
OTOH, what would our reaction be if China moved into Burma in order to ensure relief and “stability”?
Dougee,
Your remark about the video clip of Justice Scalia, a man of breathtaking intellect, and a favorite jurist of mine, puts me in mind of another such brilliant judge, and hopefully, a future Supreme Court Justice, US Appeals Court Judge Janice Rogers Brown. She is a stalwart defender of private property rights against the encroachment of collectivism. Her two most famous speeches are “Fifty Ways to Lose Your Freedom” found here, and “A Whiter Shade of Pale” found here. Some samples:
Enjoy!
I don’t think we ar every far off here.
I heard a report today that while the junta was generally OK with “UN” aid, they specifically did not want any “US” aid. In fact, any help from the United States military was particularly unwelcome b/c the junta is afraid of US military involvement in the “internal affairs” or Myanmar.
Given recent history of the affect of US military on despotic regimes (in Iraq and Afganistan), this is understandable. The funny thing is, I am sure there are a lot of Americans on the ideological left who agree with the junta.
Michael K.,
On a larger scale, the whole question of UN/US aid for international disasters such as this is almost obscenely funny.
When Indian Ocean Tsunami hit in December of 2004, the Secretary General of the UN was on a skiing holiday in Montana (I believe) and could not be bothered to leave the slopes to deal with the crisis for 5 days. When he finally did return from his vacation, it took the UN another week of talks and meetings to determine what was to be done and how. The Secretary General’s first remarks were to castigate the US for its “miserly contribution”.
Meanwhile, the commander of US Forces in the Pacific immediately dispatched the nearest Navy vessels to the most distressed areas. Navy sailors and US Marines worked 24/7 delivering their own food, their own potable water, and their own medical supplies, setting up communications and rescuing refugees. Chopper pilots were given special exemptions to fly beyond normal DoD daily and monthly limits. Extra fuel, food, medical supplies, tents, cots, etc. were sent for and delivered. Military personnel put themselves and their mission in jeopardy to help victims whose language they could not speak simply because they were there and they could help those who needed the aid.
What the military junta in Burma does not comprehend, cannot comprehend, is that in a free society our military takes its direction from a freely elected, consensual civilian government.
Carrick nails it: you have to first determine if a government is legitimately sovereign before interference in it’s affairs can or can’t be called a breech of sovereignty. I have argued this before vis-a-vis the US invasion of Iraq.
If the UN - no matter how imperfectly - is starting to recognize that a legitimate government has a responsibility to its people and that abdication of that responsibility voids the presumption of sovereignty, then it is cause for celebration. I laud any positive steps they take in this direction, even if they are small and belated steps.
Seth,
The larger and more difficult questions remain: Who is to make that determination, under what circumstances, and according what criteria? What is the authority under which these steps are undertaken, and who or what is to enforce such a decision?
If the UN is indeed taking the “small steps” you suggest, that may be a good thing… some day and under different circumstances. But given the present composition and organization of the UN, and the simple fact that the UN’s decision making process in terms of international affairs is not restricted to those governments that are demonstrably consensual, I think France’s suggestion that UN’s responsibility overrides any nation’s sovereignty sets a dangerous precedent absent the appropriate safeguards. I’m not at all comfortable with an “ends justifies the means” precedent in the hands of today’s United Nations.
Thanks Bat One!
The rulers of Burma do not care how many people die. They have been forcing people into the coastal regions in their efforts to suppress groups who are fighting against them. Killing off a couple hundred thousand of them is a win/win for them. Just ask the Karen.
Things are only getting worse for the estimated 1.5 million cyclone victims.
The current “rulers” of Burma give not one pile of steaming shit for the welfare of the people living in coastal regions. They have been actively forcing people out of the mountain regions and into the very areas which sustain the heaviest casualties in monsoon season.
A tactic as old as the hills.
As for the “rulers” of Burma stealing the relief supplies? Exactly who the hell is surprised in the least?
That’s the question alright. If the invasion of Iraq was legitimate then surely a relief effort backed by force if necessary passes the test as well.
I don’t think “good intentions” in themselves are enough. The Burma case seems pretty easy since most everyone agrees that victims of cyclones shouldn’t be denied aid simply because its government says so. It seems to me that some sort of consensus in favour of action is is required.
OTOH, what would our reaction be if China moved into Burma in order to ensure relief and “stability”?