PDA

View Full Version : Republicans and "security"


Valentine One Radar Detector

Eric
09-18-2009, 08:53 AM
Republicans used to criticize liberals for demanding that government "protect" them from life's exigencies - examples include welfare and Social Security. The Republicans would mock the liberals' fixation on security and their willingness to sacrifice liberty in exchange for it.

But since 911, these same Republicans have become obsessed with security - and shown their willingness (their eagerness) to forfeit liberty, or strictly limit it, in exchange for the supposed "security" the government would provide in exchange.

The fact that liberals want economic security while Republicans want physical security doesn't change the nature of the transaction - or the moral rot and spinelessness at the root of it.

The end result - more government and less freedom - is the same in each case.

Yet Republicans typically like to strut around with patriotic fervor and consider themselves more manly than "wimpy" liberals. But it's not very manly to cringe in fear every time the government starts talking about the bogeyman; nor to cheer each new restriction of our former liberties on the basis that doing so will keep us "safe."

Republicans and liberals are both statists - just coming at it from different directions.

swamprat
09-18-2009, 11:06 AM
I have noticed the same thing about Republicans, alhtough, I think that their boot licking security binge began long before 9/11. "Law and order" Republicans have been around since at least the Nixon administration. In fact, his 1968 campaign book stated that we are "entering a new era of law and order" if he became president. (I don't think that he had Watergate in mind at the time). It was a treatise to support "people in uniform" and all that rot.

There has been a nasty contingent in the Ameirican population that is into control of personal behavior. The suspect or defendant is presumed to be doing something wrong and is presumed to require punishment to the "fullest extent of the law." These people make me sick and angry at the same time. The only thing funny about their ox getting gored by someone like Obama is to watch them react. Of course, that is a heavy price to watch them cringe.

Many of them will want you to get a ticket for driving 32 in a 30, but will scream like hell when there is a threat of taking away guns or taxing churches.

I am not for either, but these people are part of the problem, not the solution.

Eric
09-18-2009, 12:53 PM
I have noticed the same thing about Republicans, alhtough, I think that their boot licking security binge began long before 9/11. "Law and order" Republicans have been around since at least the Nixon administration. In fact, his 1968 campaign book stated that we are "entering a new era of law and order" if he became president. (I don't think that he had Watergate in mind at the time). It was a treatise to support "people in uniform" and all that rot.

There has been a nasty contingent in the Ameirican population that is into control of personal behavior. The suspect or defendant is presumed to be doing something wrong and is presumed to require punishment to the "fullest extent of the law." These people make me sick and angry at the same time. The only thing funny about their ox getting gored by someone like Obama is to watch them react. Of course, that is a heavy price to watch them cringe.

Many of them will want you to get a ticket for driving 32 in a 30, but will scream like hell when there is a threat of taking away guns or taxing churches.

I am not for either, but these people are part of the problem, not the solution.

Yes, exactly!

The solution can only come from acceptance of what I have begun calling the Core Principle:

No individual is entitled to use force against another individual, except in self defense (specific, immediate threat of a physical assault upon person or property).

Ever.

This specifically includes organized force via government (that is, using the government to do your dirty work for you under the oily subterfuge of "progress," "reform," "plans" and the so-called "public good."

That means any government program or plan that forcibly deprives any individual of his property (including income) or threatens his person (in the event he refuses to turn over property or comply with government edicts as regards his private affairs, etc.) is a moral crime that cannot be countenanced.

Principle Two:

The only legitimate functions of government are common defense of the nation against offensive force by other states (no "nation building" or "pre-emptive" wars, etc.), and a civil/criminal system to provide for the rule of law, enforcement of contracts, apprehension and prosecution of people who violate Principle One above.

That's it. Period.

Funds to provide for these legitimate functions are to be derived not from taxation of individuals but via taxation of corporations, tariffs and the like.

People who can agree to live by this code are part of the solution; everyone else is a thug/parasite to one degree or another - and part of the problem.