First we learn that right wing extermists are making threats on members of congress who signed the health care bill. Now so-called christian militia group is plotting to assassinate police. Michigan seems to be over-represented in this trend. Not surprising since the recession has hit people there really hard. Right wing talk show hosts should remind their followers that they are supposed to be against terrorism. Meanwhile the Onion should run an article advocating that we bomb Michigan from 30,000 feet like we did to get the terrorists and their supporters in Afghanistan in 2002.
Out of curiosity, how do you classify the founders of the US?
Dead.
Ok.
And when they were alive? Are they better classified as terrorists or freedom fighters?
If the government today declares your rights null and void – and the only right you have is the right to obey the government – at what point does violent oppression against government figures and institutions become justified?
By implication, you are equating the persons who anonymously threatened the life of elected representives and the Hutaree militia who plotted to assassinate state and local police officers with the founders. It’s a way of justifying the actions of these groups. In a representative democracy, your side doesn’t always have the majority. So there is no conceivable democracy in which one party dominates all the time. Those who turn to violence when their side loses in the democratic process tyrants and scoundrels, bullies and terrorists.
Majorities in the representative democracies of the US gain their authority through the Constitution - and only through the Constitution - not through a “mob rule” majority mentality. The US republic was specifically set up – as evidenced by a number of checks/balances – to prevent that.
The current, along with many past, administrations have violated the contitution so many times over - it’s surprising citizens haven’t revolted in the past. However, I wouldn’t confuse a complacency with repeated violations with some implicit sanction on continued gross and abusive violations of government’s restricted powers.
And to be clear - there is nothing honourable about anonymous threats or the planned assasinations of police officers. Nevertheless - there is a fine line between when such action is considered morally justified in a republic where government has fired the first shot. It is not always reprehensible - and the US may fast be approaching a time when citizens all over the nation are refusing to allow governments to violate their Constitutional rights.
It’s a fat line not a fine one. People interpret the US constituion in different ways. So what you interpret to be a violation of the constitution another may not see that way. That’s why we have the courts. The Supreme Court is the final arbiter on what is constitutional and what is not. Have any of these fine citizens taken their grievances court before they threatened to murder people with whom they disagree and others who they don’t even know?
On June 1st, 2009, I wrote a post about Right wing terrorism and I predicted it would get much, much worse.
I would much have rather been right about the correct lottery numbers, but you take what you get.
Kropotkin
The supreme court has, for the last 100 years, increasingly taken the position that the courts are not the interpreters of the constitution - specifically that the Constitution can and should not be read as a philosophical statement that embodies a particular view of the individual’s relation to the State. Rather, and arguably since a landmark dissent in a supreme court case in 1905, the constition is “made for people of fundamentally differing views,” any one of which may rightfully gain ascendancy if its adherents compose a sufficiently influential fraction of the electorate. Quoting Judge Holmes of the Supreme court: “Every opinion tends to become a law,” and the reshaping of law is the “natural outcome of a dominant opinion.”
In other words, the contemporary position (as specifically cited and reinforced by Obama on numerous occasions I might add) of the courts is that it is “not their job to uphold the constitution as advocating any singular philosophical position”. Rather, they will simply bow to legislation of the prevailing majoirty governments and interpret the constitution within the changing laws and socio-political landscapes.
Said another way - in the opinion of the Supreme Court - if tyrannical laws were imposed by the State to force everyone into servitude to some “ideal” - it would be Constitutional.
Tell me: what do you do when the courts no longer uphold the philosophical principles enshrined by the founders in the Constitution? Do you wait for secret police to show up in the middle of the night terrorizing “dissidents”? Or do you evaluate the logical consequences of the current state of affairs and take a principled stance now?
I don’t agree with religious nut jobs – who long ago supplanted authority as truth as opposed to truth as authority – thereby negating their ability to properly reason. But in principle - what you’re slandering as “right wing terrorists” - might well become the people that act to liberate you from forced “constitutional” servitude one day.
Dairdo -
What? That’s like saying that Congress has increasingly taken the position that legislatures are not the lawmakers of the US.
He might have said that, but that every opinion becomes a law doesn’t mean that every law gets past the Supreme Court.
This is such a long leap - from the philosophical principles of the Founders to the secret police - that I’m going to need a parachute just to follow you.
If that happens, it’s not going to be a bunch of schmucks in camos with tricked-out AR-15’s and primer-black four-wheelers. These particular guys couldn’t pull off an operation that was well within the ability of your average gangbanger. And I would be quite shocked if any of them could even spell “constitution”.
Hold them up as heroes, Dairdo. That’s your prerogative. If the lives of cops weren’t at issue, the whole thing would be nothing but a bad joke.
I’d like to respond to this part first - because I’ve apparently not made myself clear.
I’m not sure if you elected to skip over the two paragraphs I’ve posted - stating my condemnation of the actions as described in the OP - but it’s rather offensive. Specifically from a moderator.
Saying something like:
- if I’m to use other moderators measure of insinuation as personal attack - is specifically insulting. I have neither inferred, nor stated, that I advocate or support the actions of the individuals referred to by the OP.
The misguided actions of idiots don’t really matter much to me - as they’re largely irrational and something to mock and condemn, not sensationalize.
However, this is a philosophy forum, and the blanket dismissal of violent action that opposes the government as “right wing terrorism” is intellectually bankrupt and, in my opinion, reflective of the complacency with the status quo that US citizens have become accustomed.
It could be a generalities vs specifics kinda thing.
Militant right wing groups are on the rise, that is a fact. The line between “freedom fighter” and “terrorist” is more one of perspective than of actual fact. The most recent right wing militant group to get clamped down on for planned activities that could be described as either “terrorism” or “freedom fighting” happened to be completely insane.
It is also worth pointing out that the freedoms these militias are fighting for are usually the freedoms of the white man to own people as property. I don’t see it as a blanket condemnation of all anti-government activity but rather a condemnation of this specific strain of anti-government activity currently en vogue in the US.
I see nothing but a defense, however oblique, of the actions of these punks, Dairdo. I have no idea why you are offended.
Ah, yes, Dairdo - I found this:
Based on everything else you say. however, I am skeptical as to how much you mean it.
Don’t take my opinion for it. Research it. The prevailing Supreme Court opinion on the Constitution is best embodied the following:
If you don’t believe me - review the standard “litmus” tests that politicians use to evaluate supreme court nominees over, at least, the last 50 years. Obama’s own regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein, a former constitutional law professor wrote an article called, “Lochner’s Legacy”, wherein he states:
Notably, Obama, as a senator, when grilling potential supreme court appointees, specifically inquires of each candidate whether they agree or disagree with the Lochner verdict and the dissenting opinion from Holmes – essentially treating the case as a litmus test for whether the candidate views the Constitution as protecting and advocating a specific philosophy - -or whether it is simply an empty Constitution - meant to help mold prevailing subjective opinions into law.
Again - don’t take my word for it. Look it up.
It is Holmes legacy that arguably defines how the Supreme Court rules with respect to the Constitution these days. Moreover, I think you missed my point. It is not simply every “whim” or “opinion” - but rather, if an elected majority decided to, oh I don’t know, force citizens to buy health insurance under threat of punishment - it will likely be considered “constitutional”.
That was my point. At what point do you invoke your right to defend your individual rights? When the State violates them a little? Or a lot? Ie: Secret police.
I’m not sure how to help you then. I abhore violence - and resist it peacefully as much as can be reasonably expected of any law abiding citizen. Nevertheless, it is a good philosophical discussion to evaluate the conditions under which it becomes necessary to defned your rights - personally. I’m sure the founders - given their memoirs and personal profiles - found themselves in a similar (albeit different) situation whereby they had to decide whether it was a philosophically rational decision to force their oppressors back at the point of a gun - or simply a civil dispute.
The point is: you can certainly debate the finer points of philosophy - and defend the right to use force - without implicitly advocating any and all violent actions committed by irrational exuberance - regardless of their slogans and rhetoric.
And what would that situation have been for the founding fathers?
cracked.com/article_18442_5- … ks_p1.html
A humorous article, sure. But the history is mostly sound.
The facts on the ground are that Supreme Court Justices fall into ideological categories. While it may be splitting hairs to show a difference between an originalist and a constructionist, there have been many Justices who fall into one category or another. And there are the so-called activists. And other types, each operating under an identifiable legal philosophy.
However, I do agree with this -
to a point. That doesn’t justify domestic terrorism nor foretell of secret police.
You seem to be stating that the only way to defend rights is with violence. But we don’t have individual rights to begin with, which is the real problem with the stance that these “militias” take. We have rights as classes - classes of citizens have rights against the government, and, by extension, against other classes. The class of people who say “don’t spend our money on stuff we disagree with or we’ll start shooting” is not recognised by the Constitution - nor could it be. No government could operate that way.
And then you don’t advocate violence.
But not too much.
Probably you can’t help me, Dairdo.
Agreed.
Agreed again. It doesn’t justify domestic terrorism - but, it could justify organized resistance from further government intrusion. Which was the source of my question: at what point do we, as individuals, justify resistance with the support of force? Do we wait until social collapse or a decent into obvious dictatorship? At what point? And why?
If you’ve inferred that - then it is a simple matter of miscommunication. Rights - traditionally - are intended to be defended by politicians - by government. A “social contract” of sorts to ensure civil society remains civil - and doesn’t descend into anarchy.
That said - I believe we do have individual rights to begin with. I do not believe any “authority” grants our rights - as such a position presupposes the possibility that if they can be granted - they can be taken away - legally - without rational recourse. We defend our lives with force if threatened - not because some authority has told us our lives are our right - but rather, because it is self-evident.
If right to life is self-evident, then the right to property is a corrollary - and therefore the violation of that right to property through forced taxation for services beyond the moral scope of government authority is right recognised as a violation and not a right of the government.
I suppose it comes down to our much more fundamental disagreement on the notion of individual rights.