Are we citizens or are we subjects?

Last year Paul Begal wrote that April 15th is Patriots Day.

Begala seems to have the idea that patriotism means that the individual serves the state. How wrong he is and how far we have fallen. The purpose of the state is to protect individual rights; to protect the social contract namely: "I promise not to kill you and take your stuff if you promise not to kill me and take my stuff."

Now we have people who want to flip this ideal on its head: that the government is not here to secure your individual rights but is instead here to protect you from yourself.

Government should be as big as it needs to be to do what it has to do. If there are no limits then there are no individual rights, no individual liberty. Therefore the questions of the day are: "what is the purpose of government?" and "what are the limits placed on what government can do?"

It seems to me, Paul Begala, that these questions were answered over 200 years ago with the writting of the US Constitution. It is you, and those like you, who have forgotten this and are trying to, slowly but surely, subvert the founding ideals and the US Constitution.

This is what people are protesting.

We must all ask ourselves: are we citizens or are we subjects?

Banning the Niqab

Is it appropriate for the US, France, Belgium and other countries to ban the niqab (the face vail)? YES it is. Behavior in public spaces is not left up to the individual. Even I, a rabid supporter of individual rights, do not claim that. (How interesting though that some leftists / progressives claim differently. We'll leave that contradiction for another post.)

Public property is property held in common. Therefore the public, either through referendums or through the legislature, can - AND DO - determine what is and what is not acceptable behavior and attire.

Furthermore the claim of religious liberty is not applicable. Religious liberty is not an absolute which allows any and all behavior -- especially on public lands.

The burqa and niquab are displays of public behavior. Women need not wear them in private spaces. As such they are legitimate targets of legislation. The only question now is should we? I answer yes to the niqab and no to the burka. Wearing a burka has aspects of political statement as well as religious but that is not a reason to prohibit is. I, after all, consider wearing swastikas, sickle and hammers, che guevara t-shirts to be political statements that are legally, if not morally, acceptable.

The niqab is not acceptable because it covers the face and hides the identity of the individual. Would we accept this behavior for any other reason? No. Therefore should we allow the niqab? No.

To those who make the argument that the niuab is worn solely for religious purposes and for that reason alone we ought to allow women to wear the niqab, I respectfully disagree. One the dispute over whether the niqab is fard (religiously required) or not has been going on among Islamic scholars since the earliest centuries of Islam. Second, as mentioned earlier, religious / cultural norms, while important to take under consideration, are not mandates upon society as a large.

See the article It Makes No Sense To Ban the Burqa

Do Not Turn Your Civil Servants into Your Rulers

In 1992 New Jersey health officials ordered restaurants not to serve raw or runny eggs, to prevent the spread of salmonella bacteria.

Others, such as Mayor Bloomberg of NY, are trying to get you to quit cigarettes and to make it more difficult to eat at fast food restaurants. They know better, they're educated public officials and it is, they say, in the public's interest that such activities are prevented. In such ways are men turned from citizens into subjects.

Michigan' governor, the other day proclaimed:

That I, Jennifer M. Granholm, governor of the state of Michigan, do hereby proclaim March 20, 2010, Michigan Meatout Day in Michigan. In observance of this day, I encourage the residents of this state to choose not to eat meat. Eating a healthy diet can be fun. Explore the different recipes that can be created by using fresh ingredients and by having a sense of adventure.
Granhom Declares Meatout

At least hers is but a suggestion. (For now).

In the 1980s and 1990s gay activists from ACT-UP demanded that AIDS sufferers should be allowed access to drugs even if they hadn't yet been approved by the FDA. Good for them. We need more of that sort of behavior.

The FDA should exist to say "these drugs are approved" and "those are not." But it is up to you to choose whether or not to heed the suggestions.

Do Not Turn Your Civil Servants into Your Rulers

Freedom: what is your definition?

Obama mocks the anguish that I, and others, feel.

For Obama and most “liberals” freedom means food in everyone’s belly and everyone being treated the same. My concept of freedom is owning my own body and my own property. You think freedom is only what other people – in realty government bureaucrats – let you have. You criticize the Republicans over Roe v Wade and yet pass laws requiring adults to wear seatbelts or helmets if riding a motorcycle. Sorry, it may make sense to wear seatbelts (I do) and wear a helmet (I do) but if you are a FREE man or FREE woman the choice is yours and yours alone. All other arguments to the contrary – namely cost to the society – are an infringement upon individual freedom and is the primary reason I’m against the health care bill. Now, under the guise of the healthcare, another wall protecting the individual from the government has been knocked down. Property rights – the basis of all freedom has already been destroyed and now you think nothing of turning over basic individual liberties to government fiat.

The basic premise of the social contract, the foundation of the US Constitution, was “I promise not to kill you and take your stuff if you promise not to kill me and take mine.” Welcome to the Counter-Enlightenment bliss of “I promise to give you room and board if you promise to prevent me from eating too many Twinkies.”

Tea Party Movement, Cato and Publius

I’ve had discussions with several left-leaning historians who are appalled with the Tea Party Movement. A pet peeve is the very name “Tea-Party.”  The original Tea Party, they say, was opposed to “Taxation without Representation” and today’s Tea Party people, as we all know, are ignorant crazies led by demagogues. Today’s taxes were voted in by elected representatives: therefore how could these people (the modern Tea Party) possibly be compared to the 18th Century version?

My first response is why were there pen names in the 18th Century movement? After all how close to the Classical originals were the 18th Century Cato and Publius?

They weren’t. Nor was the point to be exactly the same. It was to identify with an agreed upon heroic past and emulate these heroic figures. Today’s Tea Party may not be arguing against Taxation without Representation but they are combating a political establishment that has deviated greatly from the original intent of the Constitution (as they see it). They also see today’s United States to have fallen into one of the great traps warned of by de Tocqueville and others. For instance:

“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.
Alexis de Tocqueville”

The Tea Party is an apt name as it brings discussion back to the US Constitution and what it means. Do we look at rights the way it was thought of during the 18th Enlightenment or the way it was perverted in the early 19th C by the anti-enlightenment Romantics or later by the Socialists?

If you’re unfamiliar with this look up Positive versus Negative Rights.

Civil Rights and Individual Rights

Have any of you wondered why the left only talks in terms of civil rights and liberties and refuses to talk about individual rights? So, to my liberal friends what is the difference between civil rights and individual rights? What rights do we have as belonging to a group that we do not possess as individuals?

Right to ones own body - abortion

I find few, if any, liberals believe in the right to one’s own body. Oh yes they mention it with great enthusiasm when it comes to abortion but if one tries to apply it anywhere else they run from it.