The Reason Why You Can't Reason with Libertarians

This is an argument which I recently had with a loony libertarian. While I'm really conservative in pretty much every aspect, I hate when people mouth off about the Patriot Act... or George Bush. I challenge anyone to do as good a job as Bush did while in office considering all of the problems which he faced. And as for the Patriot Act, it's not only precedented by our Founding Fathers, but it has no negative implications to the average American. As long as you're not calling Mohommed the turban-toting terrorist in Abu Dhabi, then your phone calls are not being listened to. And beyong that, if you have nothing to hide, then what is there to worry about from having your phone tapped? This is all regardless of the fact that numerous terrorist cells have been discovered in America because of this Act, and that no one has really lost any of their rights. Some people just can't be reasoned with. Plato knew this. And while I wouldn't condone Plato's method of dealing with this problem (killing unreasonable people), I can see where he comes from.:

Mike Cinko:
I think you have to be very careful about the unabashedly slanted Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and a lot of stuff on Fox news. Those guys were fervently behind George Bush when he was slicing and dicing our freedoms with the Patriot Act and invading Iraq.One place that IMO should be DAILY READING for everyone here is http://www.campaignforliberty.com/They have daily opinion pieces there that often give great libertine insight into what is happening to our country. Their blogs are very good as well.Fox News does have one hour long show that I catch every week--usually via link from the Campaign for Liberty site--called "Freedom Watch". Along with host Judge Andrew Napolitano (no relation to Janet), they usually have Ron Paul, Peter Schiff, Lew Rockwell, Tom Woods and other guests to discuss current events that impact our personal and financial liberties.

Me:
I'll have to disagree with you slightly Mike, as much as I love the Constitution, I don't believe that the Patriot Act was in direct opposition to its fundamentals. The Act, as controversial as it has been made, was only intended to monitor phone calls and electronic transmissions which were made to known terrorist operatives overseas. While it does leave some potential for abuse, such as "spying" on American citizens, such things are almost completely fabricated as the average US citizen has nothing to fear. It is worth noting that a number of terrorists have been apprehended in the US and other nations because of intelligence gathering allowed under this Act. With that said, the Act should stay in existence until the War on Terror is over and, upon the end of that War, be made null and void.

Mike:
The 4th amendment says...
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. I'm no lawyer, but the Patriot Act opened a number of doors that violate this. It allowed wiretapping and monitoring of internet activity (which you pointed out). But it didn't allow this just for those with probable cause. It allows this on ANYONE. Further, the Patriot Act created a 100-mile from the border (or major waterway adjacent to a border) zone where "border patrol" agents could stop and search ANY vehicle without warrant or probable cause. That encompasses 2/3rds of Americans, by the way. Unfortunately, your "nothing to fear" premise is flawed, as the Patriot Act gave rise to the TSA searches when boarding airplanes. And because its definition of "terrorist" was vague, it created a way to allow people that--in the view of the TSA agents, were not a popularist Democrat or Republican types--to be stopped, searched, hassled and potentially arrested--for reasons that had nothing to do with airline safety.In short, the 4th amendment protects us from being searched and hassled for no reason. If they had potential terrorists in their sights and they have probable cause or a warrant, there's nothing in the Constitution holding them back. If they had no probable cause, then they can't do it. Period. Aspects of the Patriot Act are indeed in direct conflict with the Constitution.

Me:
While I understand the possible negative effects of the Act, I also find that there is acceptable precendent to it. In 1798, John Adams, one of the Founders, signed the Alien and Sedition Acts into law in an effort to find and deport French agents during the Quasi-War. Those agents...French Republicans, aka Socialists, were trying to infiltrate the US to gain support for their revolution. This is strikingly similar to the current US War on Terror, in which radical revolutionaries are declaring a war against America and are recruiting Americans to support them. Now, while the Alien and Sedition Acts were not quite as expansive as the Patriot Act (they didn't have phones in 1798), they served the same purpose, to protect American lives by restricting some freedoms. True, the Constitution promises us privacy, however, if someone was to break into your home and try to kill you while you sleep, wouldn't you want the police to enter your premises without your permission and apprehend the criminal? Same theory applies, just on a larger scale. Governments have long exercised extra-constitutional powers during war time and this is beneficial since it is more efficient to have singular rule during time of crisis...and after such crisis is over, rule should return to the people since they govern best in times of peace. The Alien and Sedition Acts were to play an important role in protecting the country. The Patriot Act does the same as there have been NOT one single act of terror perpetrated on US soil since 9/11. However, as Thomas Jefferson did by repealing the Alien and Sedition Laws when he came to office, so should our president do once the War on Terror is over.

Mike:
Because an Act or ruling was made by government, it is automatically and unquestionably a legitimate Constitutional exception? Think long and hard about what you're saying here. Your agreement that the Constitution is acceptably optional staggers me. Oh wait! But that's only in times of emergency, right? Did you know--I heard this from a former Presidential candidate--that the US has been in a Presidentially declared state of emergency since FDR took office? That's right... for the better part of A CENTURY. Why is that? Perhaps because Executive powers are expanded during declared "national emergencies"? So by extention of your logic, Constitutional exceptions have been OK for the last 1/3 of the USA's existence.On the Sedition Act... Part of this act put men in JAIL for SPEAKING against anyone in the government except the Vice President. Then you're OK with 1000 of us to be put in jail and considered FELONS after the April 15th protest then, right? You suggested that Jefferson repealed the Sedition Act because the crisis had passed. Not so. The Sedition Act ended on the last day of John Adams's term. And as you admitted, when Jefferson took office, he IMMEDIATELY pardoned the imprisoned Sedition Act victims and returned their fines to them. So either it was a staggering coincidence that the Quasi-War ended on the last day of Adams' term, or your reasoning is faulty.On the Alien Enemies Act... It was never repealed and is still in force today.On the police... Your example is completely unrealistic. So no, I'd rather the police NOT enter my home without my permission. The second amendment gives me the power to defend my property if needed. Besides, the Supreme Court has ruled that the police are under no obligation to protect me. Did you know that?

With all due respect, I believe you are naive. You assume that giving police an option to enter my property without permission, warrant or probable cause offers me protection. JUST THE OPPOSITE. Why do you think the 4th amendment exists? Because if King George or the territory governor or just some cop didn't like you, the police would enter your home looking for contriband, which also gave them free opportunity to plant something if they didn't find it and arrest you. That's why the rules are LIMITING. Opening one door opens other doors to tyranny.Look at the Steve Bierfeldt case. (Youtube it.) The Patriot Act created the TSA, which searches passengers before they board a plane. Then the vague definition of "terrorists" expanded to include basically anyone whose beliefs did not coincide with the government's, i.e. Ron Paulers, pro-lifers, Green party people, constitutionalists, etc. These instructions came from TSA leadership, not just some cop with an attitude. Bierfeldt was questioned about things that had NOTHING TO DO WITH AIRLINE SAFETY, was threatened to be turned over to the DEA because he had MONEY and was drug off to the police station. It was only after he recorded the incident and released it that eyebrows were raised. THIS is what happens when you open doors.As far as your assertion about safety since 9/11 goes, consider this. All Bush and co. ever said was that the terrorists are out to get us because we're free, Christian, whatever. Do you think Bin Laden is a "politically correct" kinda guy? In other words, do you think he'd softpedal what he said and publicly not say what he really thinks? He doesn't strike me as that kinda guy.A study was done that examined EVERY SENTENCE Bin Laden has said either in writings or speeches about why he hates the US. Once, he did kinda, but not exactly say that he hated us because we were not Muslims. But well over 1000 times (many times more than the next most prevalent reason) he has directly stated that he hates the US because we're over there, killing people and getting involved in the business of the Middle East. Now if you accept the initial premise, you have to accept that the evidence shows that what he wants is us out of there and that's far and away the highest priority reason. The author of the study suggests that they still would probably hate us if we left, but not enough that guys would be volunteering to kill themselves to get back at us.And isn't that a logical position? If China was over here dropping bombs and trying to overthrow our government, wouldn't you be ready to take up arms and fight?Another key point that people today miss... The founding fathers' position on foreign policy was to "avoid tangling alliances" with other countries, so we would be on friendly terms and able to trade with EVERYONE.War by the numbers... About 3000 people were killed on 9/11. Over 5000 soldiers have died and taken over $1 TRILLION with them in an unsuccessful effort to avenge what happened that day.Further still, the reality is that our country is broke. We're up to our eyeballs in debt and in the middle of either the greatest recession since the great depression or the second great depression. And yet, we have thousands of troops in Iraq, Obama ordered more troops into Afghanistan and we have military bases in 130 other countries. We have 10's of thousands of troops in conflict hot spots like South Korea, Germany and Japan.Another stupid question... I keep hearing that the reason we're there is "oil". And that makes sense, since oil is very important to us. But if we leave there, will our $$$ no longer be good to buy it from them? I'd think they'd still take our money.Considering all of this, my position is that we listen to the founding fathers, quit bombing people and ticking everyone off and COME HOME. I believe that will make us SAFER for reasons I stated earlier. Now if we make a focused effort to get Bin Laden that avoids bombing civilians, I might be OK with that. But what I've seen is a lot of mass destruction, sometimes in populated areas when the perpetrators are hiding in caves.As a side note, did you know that the only way for the US to declare war is via Congressional act? And did you know that a war against Iraq or Bin Laden has never been declared, even though we aggressively took out Iraq's army and overthrew their government? How is that possible? Oh yeah, that optional Constitution thing.And if you're OK with the extra-Constitutional Patriot Act, for how long is this OK? At this point, we're 6 years into it with no end in sight. What if we don't catch Bin Laden by 2013? Do we get our God given, Constitutionally protected rights back then after 10 years? At what point do we say enough is enough? What if it's like the Alien Enemies Act and it's never?Your response is appreciated.

Me:
Mike, you are completely off base and I avidly resent and reject your statement that I am naive. Quite the contrary, I have had both a formal and practical education in politics, political science, political theory, and international relations. I am an adept writer and have published and presented materials dealing with the above said subjects and I am currently enrolled in one of the greatest research institutions in the world. With that said, I believe that I have a much wider and more in-depth background in politics than the average American and perhaps even you.

Now, in dealing with the Alien and Sedition Act, you must understand that Jefferson was an avowed 'Republican' meaning that he stood for the French Republic (tyrannical in its own right). Adams wanted to protect America from French influence since the French had previously tried building a 5th column in the US. If you recall, citizen Genet, a Frenchman, was sent to the US in the late 1700s to recruit men for the Republican Army, so the threat of French intervention and war was real. Furthermore, the Quasi-War did end during Adams' term due to negotiaions with Bonaparte, and thus the war was over when Jefferson took office, creating precedent which allows the government to create repressive laws during wartime as long as they are repealed afterwards.

As for the Alien Enemies Act, it needs to be on the books since we have since Adams' time been fighting off enemy agents in our midst. Did you not hear of the recent discovery of Cuban agents living in America? or how about Alger Hiss et al? Yes, I truly believe that during time of war, the government has the right and responsibility to subject its citizens to some extraordinary restrictions. Does a little extra time in the airport line really constitute a breech of the Constitution?

The Constitution is not explicit on war powers, in fact, its not really explicit on anything and that is why, to understand the Constitution one must also look at the writings of the Founding Fathers and those who they relied on for philopsophy and knowledge. The power to declare war was given to Congress, but the power to make war was never mentioned... and finding that the President is the Commander in Chief of the military it is only right for him to retain the right to make war. This is important and it is also important that the President has this right without the consent of Congress. Whenever Congress declares war, such as WWI, those acts which are passed to defent the US, i.e. Sedition Act are much more actively pursued and repress many more freedoms than those of the Patriot Act. In that regard I believe the Founders would agree since they understood freedom of speech to be one of the most important rights of man and they knew full well how dangerous a powerful legislature would be....their generation was only a few removed from the Cromwellian era and the rise of the parliament in England.

Alexander Hamilton wrote, "Constitutions should consist only of general provisions; the reason is that they must necessarily be permanent, and that they cannot calculate for the possible change of things." This quote really sums up the general consensus of the Founders as they all knew that times would change. And with time the US grew into something larger and more powerful than any other nation in the world. And with that power we gained responsibility to spread freedom and democracy about the globe, whether our help was asked for or not. Take Iraq for example...we were much needed there in order to establish a true democratic republic..we succeeded for the most part, however we definitely should have stayed longer...100 years in necessary.

As for alliances, Alexander Hamilton wrote in Fed 15, "There is nothing absurd or impracticable in the idea of a league or alliance between independent nations for certain defined purposes precisely stated in a treaty regulating all the details of time, place, circumstance, and quantity; leaving nothing to future discretion; and depending for its execution on the good faith of the parties. " The Founders only understood war on a European scale and they did not have the resources to fight such a war. However, since we gained those resources in the early 20th century, we have since allied with many nations and have had many fruitful benefits come from such relationships. And we have saved humanity from the likes of Hitler and other totalitarian leaders.

What it boils down to is that government was created for just a few reasons: 1.) to protect the citizens from enemies both domestic and foreign, even if it means some short-term repressive measures, 2.) to provide a civilian police force to protect citizens in their lives, freedoms and properties, and 3.) to provide a venue for the settling of disputes. That is all. But more important is that government must be given those provisions in order for it to do its job. If the government is no longer allowed to do either of those 3 aforementioned things, then government has become useless and society has dove into the State of Nature...Solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.

Mike:
"Mike, you are completely off base and I avidly resent and reject your statement that I am naive. Quite the contrary, I have had both a formal and practical education in politics, political science, political theory, and international relations. I am an adept writer and have published and presented materials dealing with the above said subjects and I am currently enrolled in one of the greatest research institutions in the world. With that said, I believe that I have a much wider and more in-depth background in politics than the average American and perhaps even you."

It is clear that you are educated and an adept writer. That does not change my view, however. Barack Obama and Barney Frank have very good credentials as well.

"Now, in dealing with the Alien and Sedition Act, you must understand that Jefferson was an avowed 'Republican' meaning that he stood for the French Republic (tyrannical in its own right). Adams wanted to protect America from French influence since the French had previously tried building a 5th column in the US. If you recall, citizen Genet, a Frenchman, was sent to the US in the late 1700s to recruit men for the Republican Army, so the threat of French intervention and war was real. Furthermore, the Quasi-War did end during Adams' term due to negotiaions with Bonaparte, and thus the war was over when Jefferson took office, creating precedent which allows the government to create repressive laws during wartime as long as they are repealed afterwards."

From my readings, "Republican" means that he was an advocate of state powers with limited federal powers, i.e. the 10th Amendment. The correct term at that time was "Federalist", but that term had already been commendeered by the opposing political group, who were really statists (which included John Adams), ironically enough. I am unfamiliar with a tie in with France.

"As for the Alien Enemies Act, it needs to be on the books since we have since Adams' time been fighting off enemy agents in our midst. Did you not hear of the recent discovery of Cuban agents living in America? or how about Alger Hiss et al?"

I'm not opposed to the Alien Enemies act because it is directed at non-US citizens. Which brings us to another interesting point... The guys who flew the planes into the towers and pentagon and Pennsylvanian dirt on 9/11 were all aliens. So EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN must have their rights taken away because a bunch of non-Americans did bad things. That doesn't make sense.


"Yes, I truly believe that during time of war, the government has the right and responsibility to subject its citizens to some extraordinary restrictions. Does a little extra time in the airport line really constitute a breech of the Constitution?"

You obviously didn't address or review the example I gave.

"The Constitution is not explicit on war powers, in fact, its not really explicit on anything and that is why, to understand the Constitution one must also look at the writings of the Founding Fathers and those who they relied on for philopsophy and knowledge."

I agree.

"The power to declare war was given to Congress, but the power to make war was never mentioned... and finding that the President is the Commander in Chief of the military it is only right for him to retain the right to make war."

This is doubletalk. If war is not declared by the only lawful entity that can do so, how can the action of war be legally taken? By this statement, declaring war is pointless. Further, the founding fathers created checks and balances in the system to preclude single entities like the President from having unbridled power. But you say that it is right that the President has unchecked power to make war (below). This is a clear deviation from the Constitutional separation of powers.

"This is important and it is also important that the President has this right without the consent of Congress. Whenever Congress declares war, such as WWI, those acts which are passed to defent the US, i.e. Sedition Act are much more actively pursued and repress many more freedoms than those of the Patriot Act. In that regard I believe the Founders would agree since they understood freedom of speech to be one of the most important rights of man and they knew full well how dangerous a powerful legislature would be....their generation was only a few removed from the Cromwellian era and the rise of the parliament in England. "

Any Act that conflicts with the Constitution must be null and void, since the Constitution is the SUPREME law of the land. That includes the Sedition Act.(continued)