Laws against “hate speech” are attacks on free speech and should be repealed. The same goes for all such laws, be the excuses for them obscenity, blasphemy, racism, sedition, or homophobia. The US first amendment should apply throughout the world.
I have often been angered by various people’s opinions but that is no reason to ban them.
Mark Taha
Discover more from The Libertarian Alliance
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Agreed on the principle – although it should be local versions of the First Amendment (not the First Amendment itself).
I believe in all ten of the American Bill of Rights (but that each nation should enforce a local version – not the American document), including the Fourth Amendment (ignored by asset theft “laws” – upheld by a five to four Supreme Court judgement where the normal bad guys were good guys and the normal good guys were bad guys). And the Tenth Amendment – although the word “specifically” should be in it (it was in the draft – but not the final text).
However, a provision from the British Bill of Rights would also be useful – the denial of any right of the Executive (in the British case the Crown) to either impose its own laws (“Executive Orders” in American language) or to ignore laws that are actually on the books.
The lawless power of American Presidents is not good – and impeachment is not an effective means of controlling them (because impeachment is incredibly difficult).
It would be awfully nice if the NINTH Amendment were seen as something more than “an inkblot.”
It would be awfully nice if all government agents, from the President through the Congressional members through the Justices of the various Federal Courts, and their employees, including the janitors, could get their heads around the fact that it is the CONGRESS that is empowered to make law (statute).
I do see a justification for Presidential power to set TEMPORARY rules in order to deal with EMERGENCIES, chiefly of defense. But it needs to be fenced off in a way that it presently is not.
Two things about impeachment.
First, “impeachment” only amounts to a censure. To actually oust a President guilty of “high crimes” (I omit “and misdemeanors,” which is ambiguous though euphonious), the Senate must find him guilty in a trial, and no Senate has ever been up for this, nor is likely to become so unless there is a sea-change in our entire political culture and outlook. From Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment#United_States
(Note that this uses the term “impeachment” in two different senses in the very explanation of what it means! Not good. Part of the trouble, then, is that there is ambiguity about the term and the process and its meaning and effects in the minds of the several voters and also of the several Congressmen.)
(Aside: Senators as well as Representatives are Congressmen. Aside: “Men” in this sort of context, is used as a generic noun, referring to “human beings” regardless of gender. It is PC-Speak indeed, as well as a distortion of the structure of the English language, to insist that “men” refers only to males and relegates females to some sort of secondary, sub-male-human status as human beings.)
Second, as a result of this, impeachment becomes more common (though still rare) and therefore results in less and less stigma attached to the impeached. So Clinton was impeached, so what. In other words, the possibility of impeachment becomes less and less of a deterrent to wrongdoing and also less and less of a consideration in the mind of the voting public.
Julie – I tend to favour the “New Jersey Plan”. A President chosen (Council Manager style) by a unicameral Congress chosen by the State legislatures (a bit like the Senate before 1913) and serving at their pleasure.
But then I have strong anti Federalist tendencies (unlike the people who actually wrote the New Jersey plan) as I see the Federal government as being more a military alliance of States – not a “national government”. So no President who can “speak for the nation” (because he is elected by them) and a Congress that is chosen by the States (equally) not “the people” is to me a feature-not-a-bug.
On the Ninth Amendment – it assumes a background in natural law thought (fine at the time – as every educated person had that, and only a few people, such as D.H., mocked the idea of natural law) – today it either leaves people baffled or is used as an excuse for a “right to abortion” or whatever.
A group of people who all understand a tradition sitting around writing a document – are going to assume that everyone else understands it as well.
That is why I (shock horror!) prefer some of the later State Constitutions – as they were not written by people who assumed that everyone understood everything they did, so they actually explained-what-they-were-talking-about (in the text).
What a perverse person I am.
Well, don’t let me stop you, Paul. I’ve always been pretty much of an “anti-Federalist” myself. :>)
[Although I don’t see that at this point, having the State Legislatures pick the Senators would help. Maybe it’s because I’m in Illinois, but to me it looks as if the State legislatures are in the same church with Washington and the Party Elites (for both parties). Illinoisans don’t have all that much influence over what the State of Illinois does, after all. Except that thanks to the good offices of the Illinois State Rifle Association, the Chicago-area suburbs at least seem to be somewhat in revolt against the anti-gun laws that Chicago keeps trying to foist on all of us.]
I was listening again this evening to the panel from a couple of years ago on Classical Liberalism, featuring Messrs. Epstein, Tomasi, Koppelman (?), McConnell, Rahe, and Rasmussen. (Hope I didn’t leave anybody out.) And for some reason Miss Rand’s opinion that the Libertarians (big or little “L”) would go nowhere because as a group there was no underlying philosophy made more sense to me than it ever did before. That is, I saw her point from a little different angle. I still think that people with dissimilar philosophies can work together toward a certain common end, of course, but the discussion pointed up the degree of difference in the basic worldviews of the various “classic liberals” (except for Koppelman’s; he was the “token librul” on the panel).
In particular, though, your point about people’s not understanding the Ninth Amendment’s “rights retained” language, which you attribute to the demise of the Natural Law tradition is an excellent example supporting her claim. It really is quite clear that there needs to be some common philosophical understanding of what we libertarian-ish people mean by “rights,” and what the philosophical basis of their importance is. Otherwise you get people bobbing and weaving, like Tomasi (who sounded really, really nervous for some reason), not so able to understand what “rights” (properly speaking) are.
As to your other point, about detailed Constitutions. Louisiana has had god-knows-how-many Constitutions over its lifetime, the latest one having been re-ratified in 1974 … there was a piece either from 2009 or from last year (forget which; after all it’s been 24 hours!) in the Chicago Trib discussing whether Louisiana continued to uphold its ancient and venerable place as the most corrupt state in the nation, or whether its rival for the honor, Illinois, had finally overtaken it.
It seems to me you can argue it either way. My own belief is that over the very long haul, no constitution, detailed or not, written or not, will last, on account of “the cussedness of Man.” I surely do see your point, and my natural tendency is to agree with it; but what people take as the meaning of a word or phrase changes, as does their overall worldview — as you point out. So the written document is going to be interpreted differently over time, even if it weren’t also true that people inevitably try to push the interpretations in whatever direction they prefer. This is easier, of course, when the constitution is minimalist. On the other hand, trying to legislate in ultra-fine detail won’t work either. There will always be cases and situations that don’t quite fit into any of the available categories.
Of course, some political orders do last a very long time; but I think that when they do, they are like the larger mammals, at least, in that their characteristics change somewhat over the long haul. Or at least, that seems to have been the case in the West (say, from roughly Greece to someplace in the mid-Atlantic).
Julie.
As you know the late Ayn Rand was generally sound on policy – and that matters to me (nasty concrete bound person that I am).
I also like the old (not the post 1960s) culture of the North of the United States (the self restraint, the clean houses, the work ethic) – it is about as far from chaotic me as it is possible to be, but there we go…..
On anti Federalism – not on SLAVERY.
Of course, Paul. That goes without saying.
“That goes without saying” – sadly not on this site Julie. Plenty of people around here believe the Rothbardian line (really the Woodrow Wilson line) that the Civil War was not “really” about slavery.
For example, it was all about evil northern capitalists violating free trade…… (on the orders of Ming – Emperor of the Planet Mongo).
The truth that Lincoln unfortunately was (economically) an Henry Clay Whig (in favour of tariffs and other such) has been used a foundation upon which to build a mountain of lies.
Even the fact that the war (the killing) had actually started before Lincoln was elected (in “Bleeding Kansas” – where Republicans were being denounced both as religious fanatics and tools-of-the-capitalists in the 1850s, just as they are today) does not stop the “economic interpretations” tap dance. Which side (slave or free) was going to claim the West was bound to lead to war – sooner or later (even if secession has been accepted the new “Slave Owning States of North America” would soon have gone to war with the remaining “United States of America”).
Some Founders at the time of the creation of the United States regarded slavery as an urgent issue that had to be dealt with NOW (such different people as John Jay and Ben Franklin felt this – it was not a party political issue, it was an issue that some indviduals felt strongly about and some individuals did not feel strongly about).. And some people had a vague hostility to slavery – but did not propose anything that would deal with it, people such as Thomas Jefferson.
The latter seemed to believe that slavery would just go away on its own – without them having to make any sacrifices (economic or political).. They were wrong – slavery did not wither away over time, it got stronger (the wound festered).
Indeed the South was more dependent on slavery in 1861 than it has been in the 1780s.
If people such as John Jay (a slave owner himself) had not worked to end slavery in (for example) New York State (losing an election over it – but coming back) – perhaps (even without cotton) slavery would have festered in the North also.
Nothing good in politics just “happens” – it has to be MADE to happen, by people who really believe in it.
Only a few years before 1776 slavery had come to Georgia (due to corrupt court judgements – overturning the will of the Founder of Georgia) – the “Slave Power” without Georgia would have been impossible.
Instead of the great evil of slavery Calvinist George Whitfield (a leading preacher in the years before American independence) concentrated on the “evil” of Wedgewood china (produced by the anti slavery, J. Wedgewood). Indeed Whitfield actively helped the growth of slavery.
Sometimes history can be effected by the darkness in a single individual’s soul – even an outwardly good person.
I may be being a bit tangential, but what was evil about Wedgewood china?! I’m trying hard to think of something that might offend somebody- even a Calvinist- about crockery, but I’m drawing a blank.
Officially the reason it was evil “luxury” (very Calvinist objection) – unofficially it was because J. Wedgewood was anti slavery (indeed the only way to get free pieces from Mr Wedgewood was to declare one’s self a supporter of the anti slavery cause – then anti slavery themed pieces of Wedgewood china [normally little medals and so on] would be sent to you – even if you lived thousands of miles away).
As for the clash between free will (anti predestination) people and their theological foes in terms of slavery – it went on.
It is no accident that (for example) Hillsdale College (Michigan) had the highest casualties of any northern college in the Civil War – it was a Free Will Baptist (as opposed to a Calvinist Baptist) institution (in those days).
Nearly everyone (in those days) was religious – but there were very different views of seeing religion (going all the way back to the division between Pelagius and Augustine).
Without the “benefits” of a Rothbardian education they did not know the war was not “really” about slavery.
The heck you say. Don’t you know that it’s rational not to waste your time on politics or political matters and issues because the chances that you can affect the situation are slim to none? Up-to-date philosophers and economists agree, you know.
Apparently Benjamin Franklin and Adolf Hitler didn’t get the memo.
Also, Paul, good point about the early stages of the Civil War — that it actually began before it was officially started, I mean. Even when I was in school they didn’t bring that out, at least not that I can remember.
Yes Julie – in fact the tendency in politics (and in life generally) is for things to get worse and worse, unless people constantly make a vast effort. This is why (to make an anti conservative point) just leaving things to tradition does not work – unless people know why the tradition is a good thing, it will fail. Everything gets worse over time (houses decay, forests become a mess…..) unless people make massive efforts to maintain them (let alone improve them).
As for war – establishment people are hung up on formal declarations or political announcements. When people have fundamentally conflicting objectives, and are killing each other, they are at war. Regardless of what their political leaders say.
As for theology and politics……
James McCosh denied that predestination implies determinism (in the sense of PRE determined), but it does. And someone who believes that they can not do otherwise than they do has a perfect excuse for not freeing their slaves (indeed in just carrying on wickedness in general).”I can not do otherwise – I am a prisoner of my social circumstances” (so you are the victim now – not the people you are abusing).
Also (to turn away from the Calvinists to their traditional foes) if it is too easy to get forgiveness for sins (for evil acts) there is no real reason to stop doing them,- just do what you like, then cry and beg for forgiveness at confession (then go and do the same bleeping thing again). Many Roman Catholics have recognised this weakness – in Church Law absolution should NOT be given unless there is proof of sincere repentance (for example a criminal hands himself in for punishment), but the temptation to just play the “say X number of Our Fathers…. or Hail Marys…….” game is often too great for priests. Justified by appeals to “love” and “Christian compassion”.
For someone who BOTH believes that they could do better (if they really made the effort) and has no priest (priest who is not very strict on Church Law – and many of them are not, even for their own sins – producing Jesuitical arguments to justify just about anything) to turn to, life is rather different.
Hence (for example) the behaviour of so many “Cumberland” (as opposed to mainstream Calvinist) Presbyterians in the South. Standing against the wider society.
Which church one belongs to is (in the United States) itself a matter of choice.