Wednesday, February 08, 2006

The Republican Ideology of the Total State

Anthony Gregory, one of my favorite libertarian writers, had another masterpeice posted today on LewRockwell.com .

If I had 1% of this guy's talent at writing about politics, economics, history, and just about anything else...I could conquer the world.

Excerpt:

This Republican doctrine of presidential supremacy begs some questions. First of all, if the executive is indeed endowed with such broad authority, whether by the Constitution, historical precedent, or the resolution passed shortly after 9/11, why do its top officials even bother with statutes such as the PATRIOT Act, which was passed after the authorization of force after 9/11? Why are they putting up such a fuss about renewing it? In his State of the Union, Bush repeated the claim that they need the PATRIOT Act to have the same tools in the war on terror that they have in more pedestrian law enforcement efforts, such as the drug war. But if the president does have, as he and his posse insist, the "inherent authority" to spy on us and throw us into cages without a hearing, why do they need the PATRIOT Act at all?


Read the whole article here .

4 Comments:

Blogger Speedothebrief said...

This is the first thing that I have ever read about the Patriot act that could ever make me question its necessity. This is definitely an interesting point. We ARE at war, and the President DOES have extra authority because of it. What those authorities are... well those are in question. However, if someone wants to question them, they need to be questioning them in the courts. If the U.S. Supreme Court wants to hear a case on the constitutionality of the President's authority to wiretap... fine. Go right ahead. I don't think they would even hear the case, because such an action is a viable and reasonable action to help ensure the protection of the United States and it's citizens.

Personally, I hope that our enforcement agencies have the ability to lawfully destroy our enemies in America. I believe that they don't. I also happen to believe that we will be attacked by these psycos several times... so those two beliefs kind of go hand in hand.

Is the Patriot Act a good idea? I don't know. I have my own ideas about it, but I think we ignore the real issue here: Our country is being attacked on a daily basis by islam. We need to find a way to defend ourselves. I don't think the Patriot Act is necessary for this.

Then again, I'm no expert.

Let's just all hope that we find some kind of way to defend ourselves from our new enemy

11:57 PM  
Anonymous Libertarian Jason said...

What those authorities are... well those are in question.

See...Therein lies the problem.

The whole point of the Constitution was to delegate a finite, explicitly enumerated set of powers to the FedGov and its branches. To say, "well, the President has an expanded, but undefined set of new powers during war"...(which was never declared, by the way) contradicts the entire spirit of of the Constitution. If the President has these powers you claim he does, then show me where it says, "The President shall have the power to...(fill in the blank)". I've read and re-read Article II, and I don't see much along those lines.

I think the Conservative tendency to fall back on this idea of "implied powers", is no different, in principle, than the Liberal claim about the "general welfare" and "interstate commerce" clauses authorizing Congress to legislate and regulate everything under the sun. You are both embracing the "living document" concept in one form or another.

For example...Many Conservatives will rightly point out that there is nothing in the Constitution that authorizes Federal involvement in education, despite Liberal cries of "general welfare" and whatnot....yet, these same Conservatives will claim that the "war powers" clause allows the President to assume vast, undefined and arbitrary powers to wiretap, hold people (including American Citizens) without charging them of a crime or giving them due process, and even torture...despite clear prohibitions against all of these in the 4th, 5th, and 8th Amendments.

Plus...you want to give the FedGov the power to defeat our enemies, I ask, at what cost? Are you willing to trade ALL of your freedoms to ensure your security? Are you willing to put yourself under the boot of the politicians in the desperate bid to implore them to save you?

I'm not.

I've always maintained that every problem we face can be traced back to some form of government intervention... Poverty? Trace it back to government intervention in the economy... Terrorism? Trace it back to our meddlesome, interventionist, and imperial foreign policy, which stirs up trouble for Americans where none existed before.

I'm not willing to give up any of my freedoms to have politicians protect me from the consequences of their own misguided actions.

8:41 AM  
Anonymous jimmo the geek said...

I've always maintained that every problem we face can be traced back to some form of government intervention... Poverty? Trace it back to government intervention in the economy... Terrorism? Trace it back to our meddlesome, interventionist, and imperial foreign policy, which stirs up trouble for Americans where none existed before.

On the consequences of U. S. intervention in the affairs of other nations, see "Why Libertarians Should be Critical of War" by David R. Henderson at http://antiwar.com/henderson/?articleid=8504.

And you are right, Libertarian Jason, about what a great writer Anthony Gregory is!

4:07 PM  
Blogger Libertarian Jason said...

Yes... I met him once... And he's a really cool guy, too. The kind of guy you can really hang with....

10:47 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home