Category Archives: Individual Rights

'Conservatives For Killing Terri'

Bush, Individual Rights, Individualism Vs. Collectivism, libertarianism, Neoconservatism

“I can think of only two occasions on which I agreed with George Bush. Both involved the upholding of the people’s negative, or leave-me-alone, rights.
The first was his refusal to capitulate to the Kyoto-protocol crazies. Not surprisingly, some conservatives denounced this rare flicker of good judgment. And I’m not talking a ‘Crunchy Con’ of Andrew Sullivan’s caliber—he does proud to Greenpeace and the Sierra Club combined. No less a conservative than Joe Scarborough commiserated with actor Robert Redford over the president’s ‘blind spot on the environment.’ (Ditto Bill O’Reilly.)
The other Bush initiative I endorsed was the attempt by Congress to uphold Terri Schiavo’s inalienable right to life—a decision very many conservatives now rue.
Upholding rights to life, liberty, and property is a government’s primary—some would say only—duty. But, bless their cruel little hearts, this cast of conservative characters is at least consistent. It relished the launch of a bloody war in contravention of fact, law, and morality, and now, fittingly, it’s atoning for its incongruent attempts to forestall a killing…”

The excerpt is from my new WorldNetDaily.com column, “Conservatives for Killing Terri.” Comments are welcome.

Capitulating On Canada (But Only a Bit)

Canada, Democracy, Drug War, Free Speech, Individual Rights

In response to readers’ responses to “Canada: Crap County“:

To be fair, in many aspects, Canada is less regulated than the US. Their SEC, for example, has nothing on our soviet-style apparatus. They do not conduct the kind of war on drugs we prosecute. Writers here are right: subjugation exists on a continuum and we are sliding toward enslavement. Still, as far as regular folks go—people like us who are not likely to come to the SEC’s attention, and care more about keeping our property and guns than toking it up—the US is far and away the better place.
When you go through customs, Canadians will want to tax you; Americans to ensure you aren’t a terrorist. In the US, although heavily circumscribed, the right to self-defense still exists. In Canada one can’t even purchase mace—it’s illegal, as is self defense—practically. As an outspoken writer, I’m safe in the US. So far, at least. In Canada, there’s a “human rights commission.” As in Europe, it prosecutes and can bankrupt those it deems guilty of “hate” speech. I’ll be staying in the US.

Letter of the Week: John Danforth on Canadian Culture

Canada, Individual Rights

I’ve spent quite a bit of time in Ontario, Canada, and I’ve found about the same percentage of rugged individualists there in industry as we have here in the formerly industrial wasteland known as Michigan.

The difference is that the ‘culture’ there really is ‘cultured’ by the government, as when you grow pathogens in a petri dish. So those who have the constitution of individualists are merely incrementally more out of place and out of touch. Their Ministry of Culture sees to it that all (mostly government controlled) media outlets blanket the landscape with nanny state wonder stories, interspersed with nasty ‘artier than thou’ condescending sniffs at vulgar Americanism. The newspapers, especially in Toronto, have raised this to a fine art. The individualist in such an atmosphere must not only get all of his information from the internet, he must also swim in the sea of life completely at odds with the emotional and intellectual environment around him.

We really aren’t that different, though. The disparaging remarks towards Canadians should be tempered with the observation that at least we (mostly) share a language and a custom of politeness, both of which are fading faster in the U.S. than in Canada. But Canada seems to be in a race with the U.S.—trying to stay 10 years ahead in the slide towards welfare state bankruptcy. That race is the unifying glue to their fractious political system. They might squabble, even contemplate secession, but none of them wants to be seen by the others as ‘just another state.’

My years of dealing with customers across the border have yielded a few valuable friendships. When my friends would joke about us gun-totin’ cowboys (they loved to go the shooting range and waste handgun ammunition, a forbidden pleasure for them), I would ask them if they ever saw the Monty Python lumberjack song. Other than those few friends, though, I was left with the overall impression of wonderment—if I hadn’t seen it myself, I might not have believed that a people could love their servitude so.

—John Danforth

A Republic, if You Can Keep It

America, Constitution, Federalism, Founding Fathers, Individual Rights, Law, Natural Law

Yesterday Bush signed The Military Commissions Act of 2006.” I went in search for a libertarian analysis, but found only a few splenetic screeds. While perfectly understandable, these execrations do nothing to dissect the implications of the Bill for Americans. As I read them, I knew I ought to be furious about torture. However, too little was being said about the erosion of due process, constitutional protections and the accretion of executive power.

Libertarians need to cite chapter and verse in the actual Bill and then logically and calmly explain its implications for Americans. (It is very possible that, because of his visceral contempt for the Constitution as a so-called statist document, the anarchist can’t rise to the occasion. However, he may want to bear in mind that to the extent the Constitution comports with natural law, it’s both laudable and legitimate.)

In any case, right or wrong, to security-crazed Americans, the constant squealing about torture is a signal to switch off, as it conjures the namby-pamby liberal whose concerns are, overwhelmingly, with the “evil doers.” Readers are likelier to be swayed by arguments that address the possibility of detention without trial of US citizens and the sundering of habeas corpus and the separation of powers.

Finally, I found this, which does just that. This piece from Reason offers a gist of the administration’s impetus vis-a-vis the Bill. This next piece, however, is unhelpful. Libertarians will get its Bastiatian thrust, but, bar some left-liberals, the rest will find it smarmy and juvenile. You don’t have to agree with everything Jonathan Turley says to find him inspiring. (I certainly don’t. Contra Turley, America is a republic, not a democracy, and hence not meant to manufacture “majoritarian” outcomes. And France’s centralized system is the truly ugly system.) There’s a precis of a talk he gave here. Or you can listen to him here.