Donations:
Weblogs of Note:
Straight News:
Commentary:
Liberty Related Sites:
Movies, Comics and Other Entertainment:
Referrals:
All material on this website is copyright (c) 2001-2003 by Alex Knapp unless otherwise indicated.
Y'know, that column, with it's overly-convoluted prose, reminds me of a great exchange in Heinlein's Starship Troopers. I don't have the book in front of me right now, but it was something to the effect of a student claiming that violence never settles anything, to which the teacher responded that he should tell that to the city fathers of Carthage.
UPDATE: I guess great minds think alike, as this precise exchange was quoted over at Flit.
One girl told him bluntly: "My mother says that violence never settles anything."Thanks Flit!
"So? Mr. Dubois looked at her bleakly. "I'm sure the city fathers of Carthage would be glad to know that. Why doesn't your mother tell them so? Or why don't you?..
She said shrilly, "You're making fun of me! Everybody knows that Carthage was destroyed!"
"You seemed to be unaware of it," he said grimly. "Since you do know it, wouldn't you say that violence had settled their destinies rather thoroughly?"
"The communists tried to force us off of our land in the 1950s and they failed," Mrs. Wojcik says, her face breaking into a crinkly smile. "We are staying. This is the only life we know and it suits us fine. Who are those politicians to say our farm is too poor?"Ahhh, but don't you see, Mrs. Wojcik? Your way of life doesn't fit into the grand plan that the European elites have formulated for your country. Wait a minute, that sounds familiar... didn't we supposedly win the Cold War?
That is not just wrong, it is ridiculous... for one, I would argue that the United States was far more free in many ways, both in terms of general liberty and economically, prior to the First World War. The astonishing US forfeiture laws under which one can have property siezed and then not returned even if not eventually convicted of a crime (and in some cases not even charged), make it clear that large chunks of the much hallowed Constitution are in fact a dead letter. Even more grotesquely obvious, one only has to look at the huge share of national wealth appropriated by the various tiers of American government and compare it to 100 years ago to realise the absurdity of claiming the United States is "reaching the theoretical limits of freedom". Ethnic minorities and women are now freed from onerous restrictions compared to a century ago, yet what they may actually do with that restored liberty and economic power is drastically 'bridled' by the intrusive regulatory state as never before in American history.This is actually quite a common complaint from a lot of libertarians. However, despite the claims of many of my ideological compatriots to the contrary, the United States is far freer than it was in the non-existent mythical libertarian utopia of the 19th century. And so, right off the top of my head, I present to you the top five ways in which America is freer now than it was 100 years ago.
Reason #1: The Court System is Much Fairer
100 years ago, a defendant for any crime could be tried with evidence gained through illegal searches or wiretaps. He had no right to an attorney, even for a capital crime. He did not have to be informed of any of his legal rights. A confession could be forced out of him, and that confession would be admissible. Also, 100 years ago, most criminal trials were governed under the common law, which was much harsher than criminal codes today and almost never considered the mental state of a person in assessing his culpability. Because these and a thousand other due process protections that barely existed one hundred years ago now do exist, innocent persons are much less likely to be convicted of crimes. And improvements in the court system aren't limited to the criminal realm. Civil trials have also become much fairer, and the right to sue has greatly expanded--and rightly so. Now, this is not to say that there aren't abuses or excesses in the court system, but I would certainly not trade the court system of today for the courts of 100 years ago.
Reason #2--Women and Ethnic Minorities Enjoy Greatly Expanded Freedoms
A lot of people who claim that the US was freer 100 years ago than it was today often tack on the liberation of women and minorities as an afterthought. But said liberation is a significant event. Think about it--100 years ago, women and ethnic minorities (not to mention, in some states, people who didn't own land) had virtually no power. Their rights to property were strictly limited and they didn't enjoy the same rights to free speech or free assembly. They were not allowed to participate in governance, either by voting or by becoming legislators. They weren't allowed to shop in certain stores, eat in certain restaurants, ride on certain trains, drink from certain water fountains, or even go to certain schools. Police officers would look the other way, or even participate, when women were raped or blacks were lynched. The liberation of women and minorities in America is no mere afterthought--it's a significant event in the history of liberty, and by itself is an indication that America is freer than it was.
Reason #3 -- America Has Greater Religious Freedom
100 years ago, it was much harder to start a new church. Atheists, Jews, and other non-Christians were often forbidden from holding public office and sometimes from voting. Prayer was compelled in public schools. In order to testify, you had to swear an oath to the Christian God on a Christian Bible. State legislatures and towns often directly gave taxpayer money to churches, sometimes for missionary work. And believe me, nobody would even consider allowing, say, Wiccan ministers to perform marriages. Today, almost none of these things are in place, and the result is a flourishing multi-religious society whose members are simultaneously among both the most spiritual and most tolerant in the world.
Reason #4 -- America Has Greater Economic Freedom Than 100 Years Ago
I know some people are going to take me to task for this one, but please, bear with me. I will grant you, there is a much larger regulatory framework than there was 100 years ago, but leave that aspect aside for a moment. 100 years ago, it was forbidden in most places for workers to organize in order to bargain with their employers for the price of their services. Strikes were brutally repressed by police and sometimes even the military. Also, Federal tariffs were much higher and more protectionist-based than they are today. State legislatures also had great control over the economy, as opposed to Federal control today, and in many cases the Feds do today what the States did a century ago. But one major difference between Federal control and State control is this: the Federal regulatory framework, for all of its flaws, is largely uncorrupt. Legislatures, on the other hand, were very corrupt. Big businesses would often outright bribe legislators in order to gain state-sponsored monopolies, or to outright force people off of their property so they could build. (The railroads provide an excellent case-in-point). Many businesses routinely engaged in today were outright forbidden (casinos, to bring up an obvious example). Today, however, bribery and corruption (at least in that vein) are more likely to be the exception than the norm. Not to say that it doesn't exist, but the government is much less corrupt than it was 100 years ago. The result of this corruption and outright favoritism for large companies was that 100 years ago, corporations controlled far more wealth and a greater part of the economic sector than they do today.
Of course, in a lot of ways, things were economically freer 100 years ago. Taxes were lower, regulations were fewer. However, there are two important things to consider here. Even though taxes today are much higher than they were 100 years ago, they are far lower than they were 30 years ago. There are far fewer regulations than there were 30 years ago. And for the most part, the trend is moving away from government controls over industry. Tax cuts are routine, deregulation continues apace, and policies such as the socialization of health care are roundly rejected. Economic repression reached it's peak in the mid-70s, and has been on the decline ever since. Overall, I'd say that today, we are at least on par with the economic freedom of 100 years ago, and I would argue that in many ways, we have surpassed it.
Reason #5 -- There is Greater Personal Freedom In America Today
Case in point--women can wear bikinis now. 100 years ago, a woman in a bikini would be arrested for indecent exposure. Divorce is easier, and laws against adultery, sodomy, etc., while still technically on the books, are rarely, if ever, enforced. Abortion is legal, as are contraceptives. Speech is much freer--until the 50s and 60s, states could censor books, movies, etc., until the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment applies to the states. 100 years ago, children couldn't express unorthodox opinions in schools, and were compelled to, for example, give the Pledge of Allegiance or say their prayers with the other kids. Peaceful protests are no longer violently broken up by the police. Vagrancy laws, which were often used to harass and oppress the poor and minorities, have been taken off the books. Interracial marriages are now common, whereas 100 years ago, they were forbidden. Children are no longer disinherited because they're illegitimate. In these and a thousand other ways, Americans are freer to live their lives as they see fit than they were 100 years ago.
Here's the bottom line. Is America as free as it could be? No. Are there ways in which it was freer 100 years ago? Yes, there were a few ways. But when you step back and take a look at the big picture, you'll see that America is easily much freer in many ways than it was 100 years ago. As I've said before, America is constantly working to correct it's mistakes, and through courageous people like Rosa Parks and countless others, America has expanded rights and freedoms for all of its citizens. America is by no means perfect, and there is a still a lot of work to be done--that's why I fight for libertarian principles. But to argue that America was freer 100 years ago is a gross misreading of history. There are countless ways in which this country is freer--my reasons listed above are just the tip of the iceberg. C'mon, fellow libertarians! Give credit where credit is due. America is a far better place to live than it was a century ago.
A couple of people have mentioned that my weblog list is far from comprehensive. Well, that's very true. And I do read more weblogs then are listed to the side. However, I want my links list to be a service to my readers. I do not add links to weblogs until I think they are both of high quality and sufficiently interesting enough that I have made them part of my daily routine of news reading. Sometimes it takes a while for a weblog to become part of my daily routine, and sometimes it only takes a couple of days. Nothing against any particular blogger, but I only have so much time in the day. So the links to my left are the creme de la creme--of the weblogs that I read. I know there are more--I see links to them all the time. I just haven't had the time to go through all of them and to get to know and like particular sites and authors, and I'm sure I'm currently not reading sites that I would eagerly add to the list. At any rate, I hope you enjoy the weblogs that I've selected, and I'll keep adding new ones as they become part of my exponentially increasing daily reads.
Oh, brilliant idea, George. Let's model our war after the man whose soldiers pillaged and burned so much of the South that it's estimated that the region's economic recovery took 20 years longer than was necessary. Let's model our war after the man who ruthlessly butchered innocent women and children. Let's model our war after the man who's supply line philosophy was theft and plunder from non-combatants (by contrast, during the Revolutionary War, Washington strictly forbade his troops from stealing from the land). That's right, George. Let's model our war off of this brutal savage, whose legacy of pain throughout the South is still apparent--I know Southerners who get angry just at the mention of the man's name.
On second thought, maybe there are better role models to be found in American history.
-- Victor Davis Hanson, in an excellent column (does he write any other kind?) in today's National Review Online
The thing is, though, is that India is probably in the right on this. Unfortunately, Pakistan has porbably done all it can do. As Glenn Reynolds has pointed out, most of Pakistan, including elements of their Secret Service (as I've pointed out several times) is actively opposed to us and India. What we need to do, as Reynolds rightly points out, is to encourage Musharraf to clean house. However, he seems eager to get us out of Pakistan. The Pakistani news is reporting that bin Laden is dead and the Pakistani foreign minister dismisses out of hand any claim that bin Laden may have escaped to Pakistan. Moreover, with Pakistan's reaffirmation of their alliance with China (the same China who supplied al-Qaeda with weapons), it's possible that they may feel confident enough to rebuff demands by the U.S. that they acquiese to India in cracking down harder on terrorism. More on this as it develops...
-- Tunku Varadarajan, in a stirring editorial in today's Wall Street Journal. (thanks to Rallying Point for the link)
Eric Idle: Bring out your dead! [clang!]
US Special Forces: I've got one right here.
Osama bin Laden: I'm not dead yet!
EI: Wait a minute, he says he's not dead.
USF: Oh, he'll be dead in a minute. C'mon, can't you take him?
OBL: I think I'm getting better!
USF: [to OBL] Oh, you're not fooling anyone. [to EI] Look, can't you take him?
EI: I can't take him if he's not dead.
USF: Look, isn't there something you could do?
OBL: I feel happy! I feel happy! I feel---[THWACK!]
USF: Oh, thank you very much.
EI: Not at all. See you next Thursday.
And now things get interesting. The Hindustan Times is now claiming that bin Laden is in Kashmir after being aided by Pakistani secret services in his escape. Of course, this isn't very likely (but it's possible, so don't count it out), but the suggestion might be enough to get the US to back away from its support of Pakistan, right? There's no way that Musharraf would let US troops into Kashmir. In fact, he's made it very clear that he considers Kashmiri militants to be involved in legitimate conflict, and not terrorists. Even the suggestion that the US send people in to investigate might get rebuffed, leading to a much colder relationship between the US and Pakistan, which is exactly what India wants right now. (It's also, I might add, what China wants right now.)
In other related news in Southeast Asia, the Japanese have engaged and sunk a North Korean spy ship, marking the first time that they've engaged an enemy militarily since World War II. What is North Korea up to? Tensions have also increased between North and South Korea as North Korea has become more and more belligerent. Question: why, after the past few years of becoming more open and complying with international treaties, is North Korea suddenly acting up? It's clearly not in their interest to start a conflict with Japan. Unless, of course, someone is providing them with the assurance that they would succeed in such a conflict. But my, my, what country would possibly help them? What country with a millenia-old rivalry with Japan would benefit from even more conflict in Asia? Hmmm.... I wonder.....
There were a variety of reasons for their getting it wrong this time, the first of which is that military experts didn't grasp that we had moved into a new kind of war - a dirty war without divisions of armour and troops, squadrons of attack helicopters nor the battlefield heroism that Sir Michael was once decorated for. They underestimated US power and the strength of the country's resolution once riled. At the same time they wildly overestimated the Taliban's will to resist and Islam's response to the bombing. Ignorance and pessimism prevailed - among hawks too - and the entire debate was underlaid by a suspicion that we were spiritually inferior to Islam and the West had it coming.Damn straight. (thanks to Little Green Footballs for the link.)To my mind the most serious mistake of the peace party was its failure to stand up for the democratic achievements of the last 100 years and for the reign of liberal values in which we thrive and indeed possess the freedom to debate the enormous issues that now face the world. That is still something worth fighting for and I am unembarrassed by saying it.
Following me means forsaking the desire to hurt back, to rob your enemies of their humanness, even when their inhuman acts aim to rob you of yours. It means refusing to buy the Great Lie of evil -- that true peace and justice can be achieved through deliberate and systematic violence.This is, of course, an enormous misinterpretation. The command to turn the other cheek is not a repudiation of self-defense. It's an appeal to your enemy's humanity. The reason for a nonviolent response is to provoke the person attacking you into realizing the pain he is causing. But this only really works in a one to one context. Moreover, this only works when your enemy has a conscience; when you know that he will feel pity for you. But when an enemy delights in suffering and delights in pain, turning the other cheek is not the correct moral solution. Ghandi recognized this, as did King. Orson Scott Card (not exactly an un-religious man) expounds on this very point in this excellent essay. Key quote:It means enduring the insults of angry and frightened people who wrongly equate "love thine enemies" with "have no spine."
To borrow from our holy brother Mahatma Gandhi, following me means donning the heavy cloak of peace and wearing it forever -- not just when it is convenient, or when you are watching someone else's war.
But what does a Christian do when someone else is being harmed? Is it Christian to turn the other cheek when someone else has been slapped? If you see a child being beaten, or an elderly person being robbed, is it Christian to stand aside and merely try to comfort the victim afterward, doing nothing to protect them?Remember, too, that to love your enemies, and to do good to those who hate you does not necessarily mean that you give them whatever they want. Love doesn't mean appeasement, and sometimes the best thing you can do for another person is to prevent them from doing more wrong.There is nothing unChristian about attempting to protect others who cannot protect themselves.
-- George Will, in an unusually good column (for him).
But not mentioned in Reuters is my prediction in that same post that an India-Pakistan war could lead to a China-U.S. war. In addtion to revelations that China was supplying the Taliban and al-Qaeda with weapons, the New York Times reports that China and Pakistan recently reconfirmed their longstanding alliance. Question: what game is really being played here? It's long been known that China has hegemonistic ambitions to spread, not only to Taiwan, but elsewhere in Asia, if they can. Could China be aiding al-Qaeda terrorists and others in order to weaken and divide US forces into countless forays in the Middle East and Africa, so they can get a clear shot at Asia? Obviously, the Chinese have no desire for a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan. However, India, with its larger, better-equipped army and democratic government is unlikely to perform a first strike. Most analysts see Pakistan as firing the first nuke in any such conflict. But perhaps this meeting between Pakistan and China was more than just a reaffirmation of an old alliance. What if it was an assurance that Pakistan wouldn't use it's nukes if China provides arms and men?
Okay, I grant you, this is all wild speculation. But it is a possibility, and maybe not even that far off. Make no mistake, China is no friend of ours, and the Administration should be watching them closely.