Advocates of multiculturalism like to pretend they are the vanguard of liberalism. In fact, in both ideology and effect, they are the enablers of fascism.
They put forward the doctrine that all cultures are equal and that to criticize another culture is racist. That the later doctrine is in fact racist is something they are seemingly blind to.
Multiculturalism racist? Why yes. The idea that all cultures are equal and your culture is good for you and my culture is good for me and that no one can say one is better than the other is based on a racial deterministic view of culture. That is to say that multiculturalists believe that people have a culture in the same way that people have blue eyes or black skin or red hair. Thus from the multiculturalist point of view, to judge one culture superior to another, is to judge one group of people superior to another.
This was the same view held by the Nazis. They believed that national socialism was true for Germans. They were willing to admit it might not be true for all people. But it was true for them and that was all that was important to them. They differed from the multiculturalists in believing that the German “volk” was superior to all other races.
All the multiculturalists have done with the Nazi theory is to declare that no one culture is better than another. This is so, they say, because no one can move out side of ones own culture to evaluate other cultures objectively because culture is not a chosen form of behavior, but deterministic.
However it is unclear why if one is unable to judge other cultures one should care for them or consider them of any value what so ever, never mind of equal value. This is exactly what the Nazis did, they held that critiques of their ideas using logic were invalid because it was Jewish-British-Middle Class logic and all they were interested in was “German logic.”
The problem is that if, like the multiculturalists, one rejects the use of reason as a means of relations between people of different cultures, there is nothing left to regulate the relations between cultures, but brute force. It is exactly this that the Nazis argued. Since, according to the Nazis, there was nothing but German logic and French logic, there is nothing to do about conflicts of interest but fight. Of course that is what the Nazis did do. They fought and killed without mercy or reason.
In essence the multiculturalists follow the Nazis up to these last two steps and then flinch from the logical conclusion of their own ideas. That they do draw back from murder and genocide is of course to their credit, but the problem is that they spread one of the basic ideas of fascism.
Now let’s turn to the logical effects of multiculturalism even setting aside for a moment its logical extreme.
Since according to multiculturalism, all cultures are of equal value, it follows that if one culture embraces individual rights, democracy and capitalism, and another perpetual jihad, honor killings, female genital mutilation, and wife beating, one culture is not to be preferred over the other.
In other words the primary effect of multiculturalism is to morally disarm the good and morally arm the evil.
Now let us turn to the effects of multiculturalism as it effects the situation in Europe today with regards to the struggle between Western Civilization and Islamic Civilization.
First of all it should be noted that the idea that this must be an all or nothing struggle with no learning on either side is itself an artifact of multiculturalism. There may in fact be good points that Western Civilization could gain from Islamic Civilization, its high value on hospitality for example. Likewise, Islamic civilization could gain an increased respect for the value of reason, individual rights, and democracy.
However, as long as the multiculturalist idea is predominant no such mutual learning is likely to take place. If French rudeness is of equal value with Islamic ideas of hospitality then why should the French change their ways. Likewise if Islamic female genital mutilation is of equal value with Western equal rights for women, why should Muslims change theirs?
Of course Western Civilization and Islamic Civilization are not of equal value. By comparison Islamic Civilization is barbaric. However this is the one conclusion that multiculturalists feel they must deny. They are in fact frantic to deny it, because they believe, due to the internal logic of multiculturalism, that the only alternative to declaring blind equality is a race war.
Thus anyone who points out that Western Civilization is superior to Islamic Civilization as it now exists, is labeled a racist by the multiculturalists. It is important to understand that this is both a tactic in that having rejected reason the multiculturalists can only resort to name calling or force and it is a reflection of the interior state of the multiculturalists.
By accepting the racial determination of ideas the multiculturalists has put himself in a trap where the only two alternatives are supine surrender to inferior cultures and fascist genocide. The liberal alternative of education and assimilation of the people from the more backward culture is blanked out of their minds by the false alternatives of their racial determinism.
Since most cultures, to be even marginally successful, must consider themselves to be of value and most consider themselves of superior value to other cultures, the multiculturalists declaration that for example Islam is of equal value with Western Civilization is not meet with joy by those the multiculturalists are pandering to.
The pandering is in fact seen as both an insult and an invitation to aggression. Consider that the militant Islamic believes wrongly that his culture is superior. He is met with the insult that his culture is no better than Western Civilization and then observes that this supposedly equal civilization believes that it is of no more value than any civilization however backward. The Islamicist both feels insulted and believes that any action he takes to revenge the insult will be meet with passivity.
The natural result is what we have seen over the past two decades in Europe, increasing sectarian violence by muslems. The first victims of this violence are those from their own culture. Women primarily are increasing abused as it becomes clear that the host culture will not protect them. Next the people who were once part of that culture but have rejected it become the victims of the totalitarian impulses of the Islamicists. Then groups that have been traditionally the enemies of Muslims and whose toleration by Western Civilization is recent or incomplete, such as Jews and Gays come under attack. Finally, as the supine surrender of the multiculturalists becomes obvious, the majority population itself comes under attack. The multiculturalists of course try and ignore this escalating cycle of violence.
Because the idea of fascist genocide is so terrible, the multiculturalists understandably, given their premise, cling violently to their wrongheaded ideology, even as events make the need for action plain. They tend to deny that any problem exists. If they control the media they will tend to down play the aggression of the violent group. They will even lie and suppress evidence that contradicts their fervorent hope that all is well. If they control the state they will tend to use its power to keep the question of civilizational conflict from coming to the fore. They may even pass laws making cultural criticisms illegal. Though they thought themselves the vanguard of liberalism, they find themselves suppressing free speech in the name of fighting racism, real and imagined.
Thus the multicultural European elite demonizes relatively moderate parties that want to take steps to limit the conflict between the native population and the Muslim immigrants. Absurd slippery slope arguments are made that equate reasonable restrictions on immigration with the first step of genocide.
It is important again to realize that as with the hysterical charges of racism, these slippery slope arguments are both tactical and a reflection of the inter beliefs of the multiculturalists.
However the hysterical charges of racism and the absurd slippery slope arguments will have the opposite of their intended effect. They will weaken the forces of liberalism instead of strengthening them.
In fact the multiculturalists will start to find that, just as social democrats were unable in many cases to fight off the contending forces of communism and fascism in the thirties, that the center will not hold.
The center will tend not to hold because of three factors. The first is that the multiculturalists have demonized the only force, liberalism that could have saved them. The second factor is that multiculturalists are in fact ideologically abetting fascism. The more wide spread is the belief in multiculturalism, the more wide spread is one of the tenants of fascism. The last reason the center will tend not to hold is that the same moral emptiness that keeps the multiculturalists from fighting the Islamiscists effectively, will keep them from fighting the fascists in the majority population effectively.
In fact the multiculturalists’ dirty secret, which they hide even from themselves, is that they, to the extent that they do want to stave off Islamic domination, think that the fascists have the right, indeed the only idea, of how to win.
Thus while at present the multiculturalists will tend to demonize the forces of liberal moderation such as the List Pim Fortuyn, the United Kingdom Independence Party, and the Danish Peoples Party, equating them with fascism. In the longer term however they will likely tend towards fascism themselves.
In fact there are as far as I can see only five possible courses forward for Europe.
The best outcome that can be hoped for is that the forces of liberalism will make a massive recovery of their moral strength in the next few years and begin a massive program of education, assimilation, and the enforcement of western values as embodied in the criminal law of their countries to protect the women, children and non violent portions of their immigrant Muslim communities.
The second best scenario is that such a recovery of liberal moral strength, but not until a civil war is inevitable. Then they will have to fight the reactionary forces of radical Islam while simultaneously restraining the fascists among the native population. This will to put it mildly be difficult, especially since both groups of fascists will be trying to provoke atrocities.
Depressingly the third best out come that can be projected is that a liberal revival halts total Islamic victory and Europe ends up like Lebanon as a patchwork of hostile ethnic enclaves.
The fourth and fifth outcomes are frankly unspeakable, either fascist or Islamic victory.
Now since Europe, the EU’s propaganda to the contrary not withstanding, is not unified, different out comes could occur in different countries.
However it is important to realize that Europe has several strikes against it in resisting both fascism and Islamism. First the European Union has no unifying history or ideology that could be used to acculturate the Muslim population and immigrants. Second the closest thing it does have to such an ideology is transnational democratic socialism which has become heavily impregnated with or is identical with multiculturalism, which is the problem. Third, while the European idea is insufficient to be an acculturating force, it maybe powerful enough to constrain the real nationalism of Europe’s actual nations thus weakening one of the potential forces of moderation.
Given the riots in Paris, it maybe to late to avoid civil war, however is may not be. It is cirtaintly not to late to avoid balkanization or fascist or islamist victory. However Liberals, Conservatives, Libertarians and all others who reject the poison of multiculturalism must rally to enforce the protection of individual rights for every citizen and deny special privileges for the forces of Islamic reaction.
I believe that Europe is still strong enough to save itself from the forces of multiculturalism, islamism and fascism, but time is running out.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Ron Paul, Gold and the Left
Those who have paid even the most cursory attention to my occasional posts on this blog know that I am by no means an egalitarian. However I have to speak out concerning those of our countrymen on the left who would support the Hon. Ron Paul Tex. for president but are being turned off by his support for the gold standard.
Those who are trying to do a hatchet job on Ron Paul are saying that the gold standard is nutty and reactionary. In fact there are several things about the gold standard that should make left support it.
A. Under the Federal Reserve Them What Have Get More Than They Otherwise Would
First let us look at that perennial complaint of the left, that profits are to high and wages to low. Now whether any particular ratio of wages and profits are optimal is to my mind a question generally best left to the market.
However it is undeniably true that the current system of fiat money elevates the profits of business. Consider that in a given period costs of goods sold are fixed, representing wages and investments in plant and equipment that are already made. These same moneys are then used to buy the products of businesses. When new money is injected into the economy by the federal reserve, that new money is business revenue for which there is no corresponding cost. Since profits equal sales revenue less costs, this this new money always increases the dollar amount of profits.
B. The Gold Standard Subjected the Working and Middle Class to less Investment Risk
Second, the federal reserve system tends to wipe out the savings of the working class and middle class. Traditionally, the financially less sophisticated who tend to be less well off saved in two ways.
First they “banked with their teapot.” In other words they put their money in a safe place and saved that way. Today such a course of action would be madness, the value of the money would be inflated away. If for example one put a hundred dollars under a mattress for 20 years and there is a two percent annual rate of inflation, then at the end of the period the money would have lost about 25 percent of its purchasing power. In contrast between the founding of the Republic in 1789 and the founding of the Federal Reserve Bank in 1912 the purchasing power of the dollar increased by one hundred percent or about half a percent per annum. Thus if one tucked a hundred dollars under ones mattress for 20 years it would increase in value by 10 to 12 percent. In other words under the gold standard the financially less sophisticated had a way saving money and getting a small return without subjecting them to the financial risk that they must brave today.
Second they bought sound bonds. Under the current fiat system this is a sucker bet, unless one takes on huge amounts of risk on so called junk bonds, the returns are eaten up by inflation. In contrast under the gold standard, the bonds of railroads and utilities offered the financially unsophisticated low but constant returns on their investments. It was for example possible to buy bonds that had a fixed rate of interest of 3 percent paid year in and year out for 150 years. Thus the poor but thrifty worker could lend the hundred dollars he had saved to the railroad and know that he would be getting three dollars in interest every year for the rest of his life. Over time the interest he was receiving would grow in value as the purchasing power of the dollar increased. When he died the same fixed rate of interest would be paid to his widow and then his children, grandchildren and great grandchildren. A hundred and fifty years later when the principal was repaid by the railroad to his great grandchildren it would have had twice the purchasing power it had when he lent it. I say would have had, because since the establishment of the federal reserve bank in 1912, the dollar has lost 99 percent of its purchasing power. That is to say a dollar today has the same purchasing power as a cent had in 1912. Thus the great grandchildren would not receive not twice the purchasing power as the thrifty saver had expected, but one hundredth the purchasing power of the principal.
C The Gold Standard Allows for Long Range Planning
This leads me to my last point about the Gold Standard. It allows individuals, associations, and corporations to make long range plans.
It is a regular complaint from the left that corporations are short sighted. They don’t invest enough in research and development. They don’t look at technology that could be profitable over the long run and have substantial social or environmental benefits, because they are to focused on the short term return.
Well if one thinks about it this is no surprise. How can a company think about long range projects when it has no idea about the rate of inflation in the future. Suppose that an investment is sure to pay $100,000 every year for the next fifty years. If the inflation rate may bounce around from 1 percent to 20 percent or even higher how does one value that stream of income? The fiat money system is like putting Vaseline over the telescope through which companies and individuals try and look into the future. Think about the lender who bought the 150 year bond thinking he was leaving a legacy to his great grandchildren but who instead left them a penny.
In the 1890s under the gold standard, railroads and savers believed not without reason that they could plan, invest and borrow over a 150 year time horizon. Today the federal government and those who lend to it don’t believe they can plan beyond a ten to twenty year time horizon. That is but one effect of the abandonment of the gold standard.
D What the Left Once Knew
I will close with the words of the fabian socialist George Bernard Shaw who wrote in a leaflet on this subject, “the value of gold and silver money tends to maintain itself, while the value of paper money depends on the honesty and integrity of bankers and government officials, and with all due respect to those gentlemen, I must advise you as long as the capitalist system lasts to vote for gold.”
Those who are trying to do a hatchet job on Ron Paul are saying that the gold standard is nutty and reactionary. In fact there are several things about the gold standard that should make left support it.
A. Under the Federal Reserve Them What Have Get More Than They Otherwise Would
First let us look at that perennial complaint of the left, that profits are to high and wages to low. Now whether any particular ratio of wages and profits are optimal is to my mind a question generally best left to the market.
However it is undeniably true that the current system of fiat money elevates the profits of business. Consider that in a given period costs of goods sold are fixed, representing wages and investments in plant and equipment that are already made. These same moneys are then used to buy the products of businesses. When new money is injected into the economy by the federal reserve, that new money is business revenue for which there is no corresponding cost. Since profits equal sales revenue less costs, this this new money always increases the dollar amount of profits.
B. The Gold Standard Subjected the Working and Middle Class to less Investment Risk
Second, the federal reserve system tends to wipe out the savings of the working class and middle class. Traditionally, the financially less sophisticated who tend to be less well off saved in two ways.
First they “banked with their teapot.” In other words they put their money in a safe place and saved that way. Today such a course of action would be madness, the value of the money would be inflated away. If for example one put a hundred dollars under a mattress for 20 years and there is a two percent annual rate of inflation, then at the end of the period the money would have lost about 25 percent of its purchasing power. In contrast between the founding of the Republic in 1789 and the founding of the Federal Reserve Bank in 1912 the purchasing power of the dollar increased by one hundred percent or about half a percent per annum. Thus if one tucked a hundred dollars under ones mattress for 20 years it would increase in value by 10 to 12 percent. In other words under the gold standard the financially less sophisticated had a way saving money and getting a small return without subjecting them to the financial risk that they must brave today.
Second they bought sound bonds. Under the current fiat system this is a sucker bet, unless one takes on huge amounts of risk on so called junk bonds, the returns are eaten up by inflation. In contrast under the gold standard, the bonds of railroads and utilities offered the financially unsophisticated low but constant returns on their investments. It was for example possible to buy bonds that had a fixed rate of interest of 3 percent paid year in and year out for 150 years. Thus the poor but thrifty worker could lend the hundred dollars he had saved to the railroad and know that he would be getting three dollars in interest every year for the rest of his life. Over time the interest he was receiving would grow in value as the purchasing power of the dollar increased. When he died the same fixed rate of interest would be paid to his widow and then his children, grandchildren and great grandchildren. A hundred and fifty years later when the principal was repaid by the railroad to his great grandchildren it would have had twice the purchasing power it had when he lent it. I say would have had, because since the establishment of the federal reserve bank in 1912, the dollar has lost 99 percent of its purchasing power. That is to say a dollar today has the same purchasing power as a cent had in 1912. Thus the great grandchildren would not receive not twice the purchasing power as the thrifty saver had expected, but one hundredth the purchasing power of the principal.
C The Gold Standard Allows for Long Range Planning
This leads me to my last point about the Gold Standard. It allows individuals, associations, and corporations to make long range plans.
It is a regular complaint from the left that corporations are short sighted. They don’t invest enough in research and development. They don’t look at technology that could be profitable over the long run and have substantial social or environmental benefits, because they are to focused on the short term return.
Well if one thinks about it this is no surprise. How can a company think about long range projects when it has no idea about the rate of inflation in the future. Suppose that an investment is sure to pay $100,000 every year for the next fifty years. If the inflation rate may bounce around from 1 percent to 20 percent or even higher how does one value that stream of income? The fiat money system is like putting Vaseline over the telescope through which companies and individuals try and look into the future. Think about the lender who bought the 150 year bond thinking he was leaving a legacy to his great grandchildren but who instead left them a penny.
In the 1890s under the gold standard, railroads and savers believed not without reason that they could plan, invest and borrow over a 150 year time horizon. Today the federal government and those who lend to it don’t believe they can plan beyond a ten to twenty year time horizon. That is but one effect of the abandonment of the gold standard.
D What the Left Once Knew
I will close with the words of the fabian socialist George Bernard Shaw who wrote in a leaflet on this subject, “the value of gold and silver money tends to maintain itself, while the value of paper money depends on the honesty and integrity of bankers and government officials, and with all due respect to those gentlemen, I must advise you as long as the capitalist system lasts to vote for gold.”
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
On the Eve of Saint Crispin's Day
Tomorow is an important day in the history of our people. In three battles over 500 years the English speaking peoples emerged victorious. At Agincourt in 1415 Henry V defeated the French and saved his army. On October, 25 1854 the light Brigade Charged to eternal glory. The combined Anglo-American fleet decisively defeated the Imperial Japanese Navy in 1944 at the Battle of Leyte Gulf . This last included the last battleship to battleship engagement thus far and the last time a battle was won by crossing the enemies T.
However it is Shakespere who made this day immortal when he wrote Henry Vs speech on the Eve of Saint Crispin's Day. A youtube reading here.
My cousin Westmorland. No, my fair cousin:
If we are marked to die, we are enow
To do our country loss; and if to live,
The fewer men, the greater share of honour.
God's will, I pray thee, wish not one man more.
By Jove, I am not covetous for gold,
Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost;
It ernes me not if men my garments wear;
Such outward things dwell not in my desires:
But if it be a sin to covet honour,
I am the most offending soul alive.
No, faith, my coz, wish not a man from England:
God's peace, I would not lose so great an honour
As one man more, methinks, would share from me
For the best hope I have. O, do not wish one more.
Rather proclaim it presently through my host,
That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart. His passport shall be made
And crowns for convoy put into his purse:
We would not die in that man's company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.
This day is called the Feast of Crispian:
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a-tiptoe when the day is named,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall see this day and live t'old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say "To-morrow is Saint Crispian":
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars
And say "These wounds I had on Crispin's day."
Old men forget: yet all shall be forgot,
But he'll remember with advantages
What feats he did that day. Then shall our names,
Familiar in his mouth as household words
Harry the King, Bedford and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester,
Be in their flowing cups freshly remembered.
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remember'd;
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he today that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition:
And gentlemen in England now abed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day. Henry V (IV, iii)
However it is Shakespere who made this day immortal when he wrote Henry Vs speech on the Eve of Saint Crispin's Day. A youtube reading here.
My cousin Westmorland. No, my fair cousin:
If we are marked to die, we are enow
To do our country loss; and if to live,
The fewer men, the greater share of honour.
God's will, I pray thee, wish not one man more.
By Jove, I am not covetous for gold,
Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost;
It ernes me not if men my garments wear;
Such outward things dwell not in my desires:
But if it be a sin to covet honour,
I am the most offending soul alive.
No, faith, my coz, wish not a man from England:
God's peace, I would not lose so great an honour
As one man more, methinks, would share from me
For the best hope I have. O, do not wish one more.
Rather proclaim it presently through my host,
That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart. His passport shall be made
And crowns for convoy put into his purse:
We would not die in that man's company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.
This day is called the Feast of Crispian:
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a-tiptoe when the day is named,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall see this day and live t'old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say "To-morrow is Saint Crispian":
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars
And say "These wounds I had on Crispin's day."
Old men forget: yet all shall be forgot,
But he'll remember with advantages
What feats he did that day. Then shall our names,
Familiar in his mouth as household words
Harry the King, Bedford and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester,
Be in their flowing cups freshly remembered.
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remember'd;
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he today that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition:
And gentlemen in England now abed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day. Henry V (IV, iii)
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Why the United States War Against Iraq is Legal
There has been a wide spread myth propagated by those who oppose the actions of the United States and its allies in invading Iraq that this was illegal because: it violated article 1 section 1 and article 2 section 4 of the United Nations Charter and article 1 of the Pact of Paris (a.k.a. the Kellogg-Briand Pact).
Those who take this position simply either a) don’t know what they are talking about or b) do know but have put their ideology or political opinions ahead of their respect for international law.
The principal that a war of aggression is a violation of international law was first stated in Art. 1 of the 1928 Pact of Paris or Kellogg-Briand Pact which reads in relevant part, “The High Contracting Parties solemnly declare in the names of their respective peoples that they condemn recourse to war for the solution of international controversies, and renounce it, as an instrument of national policy in their relations with one another.”
Now taken alone, this might suggest that those who condemn the U.S. invasion of Iraq are right in believe that our actions violated international law. However it was well understood by the signatories that the pact did not renounce the use of force in self defense. See e.g. Secretary Kellogg’s Testimony before the Senate and Sir. Austen Chamberlain’s letters on the subject. These make clear that war waged in defense of a nations territory or vital interests are not illegal.
However the Pact of Paris had not tried to define what aggression was so in 1933 a further agreement was negotiated, the Convention for the Definition of Aggression. Art 2 Sec. 5 of the convention reads in relevant part, “Accordingly, the aggressor in an international conflict shall, subject to the agreements in force between the parties to the dispute, be considered to be the State which is the first to commit any of the following actions: (5) Provision of support to armed bands formed in its territory which have invaded the territory of another State, or refusal, notwithstanding the request of the invaded State, to take, in its own territory, all the measures in its power to deprive those bands of all assistance or protection.”
As mentioned previously the Charter of the United Nations states that the purposes of the United Nations is to, “To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace.” U.N Charter Art. 1 Sec. 1 and to that end that, “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” U.N. Charter Art. 2 Sec. 4
Because aggression was not defined in the Charter of the UN a committee was appointed to proposes such a definition. The committee produced a proposal which the General Assembly recommended for further action in Resolution 2214. This definition reads in relevant part. Art. 3 “Any of the following acts, regardless of a declaration of war, shall, subject to and in accordance with the provisions of article 2, qualify as an act of aggression:” Art. 3 (a) “The invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State or part thereof.” Art. 3 (g) “The sending by or on behalf of a State of armed bands, groups, irregulars or mercenaries, which carry out acts of armed force against another State of such gravity as to amount to the acts listed above, or its substantial involvement therein.”
This language while some what different from the convention of 1933 has the same effect. It is an act of aggression to support armed bands and send them into the territory of another sovereign state. For example if a state pays people to strap explosives to their body and go into another sovereign state and blow themselves up in the middle of a crowd as Iraq did to Israel this is an act of aggression. While no state is obligated to go to war to stop an act of aggression against a third nation, they are certainly entitled to do so, since article 51 of the U.N. charter states that nothing in the charter shall outlaw acts of individual or collective self defense.
To take another example when a state invades another without sufficient provocation under international law and drives out its government and engages in rape and pillage as Iraq did to Kuwait that is an act of aggression. While no state is obligated to go to war to stop an act of aggression against a third nation, they are certainly entitled to do so, as the United States did in this case. While the U.N. sanction for the action made the U.S.’s action legal beyond doubt, it would have been legal in any case. The armistice which ended the war had conditions which the government of Iraq violated repeatedly in the intervening 14 years. It is certainly a vital interest of the United States that the armistice agreements it makes are observed.
Thus when the U.S. invaded Iraq, it had two perfectly legitimate grounds for doing so, first to put an end to Iraq’s illegal war of aggression against the state of Israel and second to enforce its rights under the armistice agreement that ended the first Iraq war. That the United States’ purpose was to ensure that a hostile state did not acquire nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons which it wrongly thought Iraq was in the midst of getting, does not in the slightest effect the legality of the United States’ action.
It is time to lay to rest the myth, propagated by some innocently and by others with malicious intent, that the invasion of Iraq by the United States was contrary to international law. In fact the United States acted to enforce international law outlawing aggressive war when most of the world would have rather looked the other way. It is for shaming the posers in the international community who like to talk, but hardly ever act that the United States and its allies are being pilloried.
Those who take this position simply either a) don’t know what they are talking about or b) do know but have put their ideology or political opinions ahead of their respect for international law.
The principal that a war of aggression is a violation of international law was first stated in Art. 1 of the 1928 Pact of Paris or Kellogg-Briand Pact which reads in relevant part, “The High Contracting Parties solemnly declare in the names of their respective peoples that they condemn recourse to war for the solution of international controversies, and renounce it, as an instrument of national policy in their relations with one another.”
Now taken alone, this might suggest that those who condemn the U.S. invasion of Iraq are right in believe that our actions violated international law. However it was well understood by the signatories that the pact did not renounce the use of force in self defense. See e.g. Secretary Kellogg’s Testimony before the Senate and Sir. Austen Chamberlain’s letters on the subject. These make clear that war waged in defense of a nations territory or vital interests are not illegal.
However the Pact of Paris had not tried to define what aggression was so in 1933 a further agreement was negotiated, the Convention for the Definition of Aggression. Art 2 Sec. 5 of the convention reads in relevant part, “Accordingly, the aggressor in an international conflict shall, subject to the agreements in force between the parties to the dispute, be considered to be the State which is the first to commit any of the following actions: (5) Provision of support to armed bands formed in its territory which have invaded the territory of another State, or refusal, notwithstanding the request of the invaded State, to take, in its own territory, all the measures in its power to deprive those bands of all assistance or protection.”
As mentioned previously the Charter of the United Nations states that the purposes of the United Nations is to, “To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace.” U.N Charter Art. 1 Sec. 1 and to that end that, “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” U.N. Charter Art. 2 Sec. 4
Because aggression was not defined in the Charter of the UN a committee was appointed to proposes such a definition. The committee produced a proposal which the General Assembly recommended for further action in Resolution 2214. This definition reads in relevant part. Art. 3 “Any of the following acts, regardless of a declaration of war, shall, subject to and in accordance with the provisions of article 2, qualify as an act of aggression:” Art. 3 (a) “The invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State or part thereof.” Art. 3 (g) “The sending by or on behalf of a State of armed bands, groups, irregulars or mercenaries, which carry out acts of armed force against another State of such gravity as to amount to the acts listed above, or its substantial involvement therein.”
This language while some what different from the convention of 1933 has the same effect. It is an act of aggression to support armed bands and send them into the territory of another sovereign state. For example if a state pays people to strap explosives to their body and go into another sovereign state and blow themselves up in the middle of a crowd as Iraq did to Israel this is an act of aggression. While no state is obligated to go to war to stop an act of aggression against a third nation, they are certainly entitled to do so, since article 51 of the U.N. charter states that nothing in the charter shall outlaw acts of individual or collective self defense.
To take another example when a state invades another without sufficient provocation under international law and drives out its government and engages in rape and pillage as Iraq did to Kuwait that is an act of aggression. While no state is obligated to go to war to stop an act of aggression against a third nation, they are certainly entitled to do so, as the United States did in this case. While the U.N. sanction for the action made the U.S.’s action legal beyond doubt, it would have been legal in any case. The armistice which ended the war had conditions which the government of Iraq violated repeatedly in the intervening 14 years. It is certainly a vital interest of the United States that the armistice agreements it makes are observed.
Thus when the U.S. invaded Iraq, it had two perfectly legitimate grounds for doing so, first to put an end to Iraq’s illegal war of aggression against the state of Israel and second to enforce its rights under the armistice agreement that ended the first Iraq war. That the United States’ purpose was to ensure that a hostile state did not acquire nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons which it wrongly thought Iraq was in the midst of getting, does not in the slightest effect the legality of the United States’ action.
It is time to lay to rest the myth, propagated by some innocently and by others with malicious intent, that the invasion of Iraq by the United States was contrary to international law. In fact the United States acted to enforce international law outlawing aggressive war when most of the world would have rather looked the other way. It is for shaming the posers in the international community who like to talk, but hardly ever act that the United States and its allies are being pilloried.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
6 Years Later
It has been 6 years since the enemy killed more than 3,000 of our fellows were coldly butcher in total contravention of the laws and usages of war. Those of us who can remember the taste of the grit from the smashed buildings and the shocked realization that as we breathed, we were ingesting the cremated ash of the dead will not forget.
In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.
We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved, and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.
Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.
In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.
We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved, and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.
Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.
Thursday, August 23, 2007
The Temeraire
I was surfiing the net and stumbled upon both Turner's masterpiece "The Fighting Temeraire tugged to her last Berth to be broken up" here and Melvile's poem on the same subject. Both are old favorate but I haden't thought about either in a long time.
The gloomy hulls, in armour grim,
Like clouds o'er moors have met,
And prove that oak, and iron, and man
Are tough in fibre yet.
But Splendours wane. The sea-fight yields
No front of old display;
The garniture, emblazonment,
And heraldry decay.
Towering afar in parting light,
The fleets like Albion's forelands shine -
The full-sailed fleets, the shrouded show
Of Ships-of-the-Line.
The fighting Temeraire,
Built of a thousand trees,
Lunging out her lightnings,
And beetling o'er the seas -
O Ship, how brave and fair,
That fought so oft and well,
On open decks you manned the gun
Armorial.
What cheerings did you share,
Impulsive in the van,
When down upon leagued France and Spain
We English ran -
The freshet at your bowsprit
Like the foam upon the can.
Bickering, your colours
Licked up the Spanish air,
You flapped with flames of battle-flags -
Your challenge, Temeraire!
The rear ones of our fleet
They yearned to share your place,
Still vying with the Victory
Throughout that earnest race -
The Victory, whose Admiral,
With orders nobly won,
Shone in the globe of the battle glow -
The angel in that sun.
Parallel in story,
Lo, the stately pair,
As late in grapple ranging,
The foe between them there -
When four great hulls lay tiered,
And the fiery tempest cleared,
And your prizes twain appeared,
Temeraire!
But Trafalgar is over now,
The quarterdeck undone;
The carved and castled navies fire
Their evening gun.
O, Titan Temeraire,
Your stern-lights fade away;
Your bulwarks to the years must yield,
And heart-of-oak decay.
A pigmy steam-tug tows you,
Gigantic to the shore -
Dismantled of your guns and spars,
And sweeping wings of war.
The rivets clinch the ironclads,
Men learn a deadlier lore;
But Fame has nailed your battle-flags -
Your ghost it sails before:
O, navies old and oaken,
O, Temeraire no more!
The gloomy hulls, in armour grim,
Like clouds o'er moors have met,
And prove that oak, and iron, and man
Are tough in fibre yet.
But Splendours wane. The sea-fight yields
No front of old display;
The garniture, emblazonment,
And heraldry decay.
Towering afar in parting light,
The fleets like Albion's forelands shine -
The full-sailed fleets, the shrouded show
Of Ships-of-the-Line.
The fighting Temeraire,
Built of a thousand trees,
Lunging out her lightnings,
And beetling o'er the seas -
O Ship, how brave and fair,
That fought so oft and well,
On open decks you manned the gun
Armorial.
What cheerings did you share,
Impulsive in the van,
When down upon leagued France and Spain
We English ran -
The freshet at your bowsprit
Like the foam upon the can.
Bickering, your colours
Licked up the Spanish air,
You flapped with flames of battle-flags -
Your challenge, Temeraire!
The rear ones of our fleet
They yearned to share your place,
Still vying with the Victory
Throughout that earnest race -
The Victory, whose Admiral,
With orders nobly won,
Shone in the globe of the battle glow -
The angel in that sun.
Parallel in story,
Lo, the stately pair,
As late in grapple ranging,
The foe between them there -
When four great hulls lay tiered,
And the fiery tempest cleared,
And your prizes twain appeared,
Temeraire!
But Trafalgar is over now,
The quarterdeck undone;
The carved and castled navies fire
Their evening gun.
O, Titan Temeraire,
Your stern-lights fade away;
Your bulwarks to the years must yield,
And heart-of-oak decay.
A pigmy steam-tug tows you,
Gigantic to the shore -
Dismantled of your guns and spars,
And sweeping wings of war.
The rivets clinch the ironclads,
Men learn a deadlier lore;
But Fame has nailed your battle-flags -
Your ghost it sails before:
O, navies old and oaken,
O, Temeraire no more!
Wednesday, July 04, 2007
Independence Day
Today is for an American the most important holiday on the calendar, celebrating the principals upon which the nation was founded. It is also in a way the beginning of the Anglosphere as something distinct from the British state. I don’t have anything to say and will let the words of our third president speak for me.
“When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government ..
We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levey war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.”
“When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government ..
We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levey war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.”
Monday, May 28, 2007
On Virtue
This post is a response to Bill’s Post at EjectEjectEject “You are not alone.” He brought up a point that needs a good place to discuss it and I thought I would provide one until such time as the Ejectia project is further along. That topic is Virtue.
In his post, Bill pointed out and listed the Aristotelian virtues. They are all to my mind important ones, but I think that Rand did a good job when she said that the primary virtues were Rationality, Productiveness and Pride.
There are several other lists of Virtues on the net. Wikipedia is a good place to start looking.
Here are some links for Virtue, Virtue Ethics, the Nicomachean Ethics, and Objectivist Ethics.
In his post, Bill pointed out and listed the Aristotelian virtues. They are all to my mind important ones, but I think that Rand did a good job when she said that the primary virtues were Rationality, Productiveness and Pride.
There are several other lists of Virtues on the net. Wikipedia is a good place to start looking.
Here are some links for Virtue, Virtue Ethics, the Nicomachean Ethics, and Objectivist Ethics.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
I Call Bullshit or You Can’t Have it Both Ways
There are some who are trying to use the tragic events at Virginia Tech to push the anti gun agenda. Never mind that the school was a “gun-free zone,” never mind that gun control is not a proven method of lowering violence in society. However I don’t want to comment on gun control generally in this post.
I want instead to look at the part of the left that has spent the last four years telling us that Bush is Hitler and now demand the disarmament of the people. I agree that this president has dangerously restricted liberty and expanded executive power. However, I do not think Bush is a power tripping genocidal dictator either.
However those who do think that have some explaining to do. Should gays, women, and other potential victims of Bushitler TM be disarmed in the face of the “Bush Agenda” TM ? If the republic is really in danger of being subverted by a dictator, one would think that that was the time to call the people to arms, not to disarm them.
The loony left faces a serious logical problem.
It is called the law of non contradiction. It was first stated by Aristotle more than two thousand years ago. “A thing can not both have and not have the same characteristic in the same respect. Either Bush is a genocidal dictator and the people should, “put their trust in god, but keep their powder dry,” or Bush is not a genocidal dictator and we should trust the authorities under his control to protect us and not keep our own means of self defense, but not both.
So which is it boys and girls? You can’t have it both ways.
I want instead to look at the part of the left that has spent the last four years telling us that Bush is Hitler and now demand the disarmament of the people. I agree that this president has dangerously restricted liberty and expanded executive power. However, I do not think Bush is a power tripping genocidal dictator either.
However those who do think that have some explaining to do. Should gays, women, and other potential victims of Bushitler TM be disarmed in the face of the “Bush Agenda” TM ? If the republic is really in danger of being subverted by a dictator, one would think that that was the time to call the people to arms, not to disarm them.
The loony left faces a serious logical problem.
It is called the law of non contradiction. It was first stated by Aristotle more than two thousand years ago. “A thing can not both have and not have the same characteristic in the same respect. Either Bush is a genocidal dictator and the people should, “put their trust in god, but keep their powder dry,” or Bush is not a genocidal dictator and we should trust the authorities under his control to protect us and not keep our own means of self defense, but not both.
So which is it boys and girls? You can’t have it both ways.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Before you Kirk someone remember Google is forever
If you run a company and a blogger makes a critical review of your services you should learn the story of J. L. Kirk & Associates, aka Kirk Associates, or JL Kirk, or JLK, or JLK-A, or “Kirk“, before you decide to have your lawyers send threatening letter trying to shut them up.
Katherine Coble blogged about her husband’s experience with J. L. Kirk & Associates, she related that she felt that the firm was at best a hard sell and at worst, a scam, a fraud, a rip-off, or a con.
The company was foolish enough to have their lawyers send a letter threatening an action for defamation on what seem to be weak or non existent grounds, since the truth is an absolute defense to libel.
In the following 24 hours J. L. Kirk & Associates, has gone from being not well known, to infamous, to a new internet verb.
Kirk, is now a verb meaning to act like a stupid bully towards a blogger.
I have no knowledge of whether or not J. L. Kirk & Associates is or is not guilty of the practices Ms. Coble described. However I am sure that J. L. Kirk & Associates acted like stupid bullies who know nothing of the dynamic of the internet when they had their lawyer threaten Ms. Coble.
Given this I can assert that as fact that I would never do businesses with them and give as an opinion that anyone who does business with them is a fool.
Would you hire the lawyers who gave J. L. Kirk & Associates the service that they did? I would have advised J. L. Kirk & Associates to give it a rest. So would any lawyer who knows anything about the internet.
Also blogging on this are instapundit, captain’s quarters, bill hobbs, and bob krumm. A summary of local reaction is here.
By the way are Kirk and their lawyers now libel proof, that is to say are their reputations now so ruined it is impossible to injure their reputation? We shall see.
Also does Coble have a counter claim? The comment on her blog by a person claiming to be a J. L. Kirk & Associates employee was possibly defamatory.
Katherine Coble blogged about her husband’s experience with J. L. Kirk & Associates, she related that she felt that the firm was at best a hard sell and at worst, a scam, a fraud, a rip-off, or a con.
The company was foolish enough to have their lawyers send a letter threatening an action for defamation on what seem to be weak or non existent grounds, since the truth is an absolute defense to libel.
In the following 24 hours J. L. Kirk & Associates, has gone from being not well known, to infamous, to a new internet verb.
Kirk, is now a verb meaning to act like a stupid bully towards a blogger.
I have no knowledge of whether or not J. L. Kirk & Associates is or is not guilty of the practices Ms. Coble described. However I am sure that J. L. Kirk & Associates acted like stupid bullies who know nothing of the dynamic of the internet when they had their lawyer threaten Ms. Coble.
Given this I can assert that as fact that I would never do businesses with them and give as an opinion that anyone who does business with them is a fool.
Would you hire the lawyers who gave J. L. Kirk & Associates the service that they did? I would have advised J. L. Kirk & Associates to give it a rest. So would any lawyer who knows anything about the internet.
Also blogging on this are instapundit, captain’s quarters, bill hobbs, and bob krumm. A summary of local reaction is here.
By the way are Kirk and their lawyers now libel proof, that is to say are their reputations now so ruined it is impossible to injure their reputation? We shall see.
Also does Coble have a counter claim? The comment on her blog by a person claiming to be a J. L. Kirk & Associates employee was possibly defamatory.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
The Infantilization of Our Youth
While doing research for my up coming post for the birthday of Washington, I came across the following which I present because It makes a point I want to address. What follows is part of a longer piece on Valley Forge
"Lewis Hurt, age 17, a private from Connecticut. Benjamin Blossom, age about 31 years, a soldier from Massachusetts. George Ewing, age 23, an Ensign of the Seventh Company in the Third New Jersey Regiment. Joseph Plumb Martin, age 15 when he enlisted in Connecticut's Third Company on July 6, 1776; age 16 when he arrived at Valley Forge. They came from Virginia, North Carolina, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New Jersey...They represented every state in the new union. Some were still boys -- as young as 12 -- others in their 50s and 60s."
The point is that once upon a time young people in our society had a lot more independence and responsibility than they do today. They were out fighting for their freedom and the nations independence. Today, all to often, young people are kept-act like children into their 20s.
At Common Law young people had more independence than they do today. While it is true that majority was not until 21, at 14 a boy or girl was able witness deeds and contracts, testify in court, select their own guardian, bequeath personal property by will, own land, and apprentice themselves. With their guardian’s permission, they could marry. They could even enter contracts for necessities and in theory could sell land, but since they had a right to void the contract on turning 21, most buyers would not buy land from minors. However, their guardian could take such action for them if he or she agreed with them.
Basically turning 21 meant that a person not longer needed a guardian, could vote, and that their contracts would henceforth be enforced whether they were in their interests or not. This meant that the period from 14 to 21 was a period of quasi adulthood were the young person could make many important decisions but had training wheals so to speak in the form of his legal guardian and the courts.
Now one may question some of the details of the common law scheme, for example the sexual inequality where by young women of 12 were accorded the “training wheels” stage that young men had to wait until 14 to be given. One might also question whether 21 was an appropriate age of majority. However the over all idea of having a training period where young people can make some but not all of their own decisions is a good one.
If we want superior performance from our young people, we need to both give them more independence and responsibility. (more info on the common law rules here)
"Lewis Hurt, age 17, a private from Connecticut. Benjamin Blossom, age about 31 years, a soldier from Massachusetts. George Ewing, age 23, an Ensign of the Seventh Company in the Third New Jersey Regiment. Joseph Plumb Martin, age 15 when he enlisted in Connecticut's Third Company on July 6, 1776; age 16 when he arrived at Valley Forge. They came from Virginia, North Carolina, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New Jersey...They represented every state in the new union. Some were still boys -- as young as 12 -- others in their 50s and 60s."
The point is that once upon a time young people in our society had a lot more independence and responsibility than they do today. They were out fighting for their freedom and the nations independence. Today, all to often, young people are kept-act like children into their 20s.
At Common Law young people had more independence than they do today. While it is true that majority was not until 21, at 14 a boy or girl was able witness deeds and contracts, testify in court, select their own guardian, bequeath personal property by will, own land, and apprentice themselves. With their guardian’s permission, they could marry. They could even enter contracts for necessities and in theory could sell land, but since they had a right to void the contract on turning 21, most buyers would not buy land from minors. However, their guardian could take such action for them if he or she agreed with them.
Basically turning 21 meant that a person not longer needed a guardian, could vote, and that their contracts would henceforth be enforced whether they were in their interests or not. This meant that the period from 14 to 21 was a period of quasi adulthood were the young person could make many important decisions but had training wheals so to speak in the form of his legal guardian and the courts.
Now one may question some of the details of the common law scheme, for example the sexual inequality where by young women of 12 were accorded the “training wheels” stage that young men had to wait until 14 to be given. One might also question whether 21 was an appropriate age of majority. However the over all idea of having a training period where young people can make some but not all of their own decisions is a good one.
If we want superior performance from our young people, we need to both give them more independence and responsibility. (more info on the common law rules here)
Monday, February 12, 2007
Other “Mercenaries"
Arkin’s use of the word mercenaries to describe U.S. forces in Iraq (type his name in yahoo to find, I'm not spreading his bilge) reminds me of two things, first A. E. Houseman’s Epitaph On An Army of Mercenaries, here and secondly of the “mercenaries,” formerly known as volunteers before our Orwellian friends decided that volunteer might send the wrong message, who have played such a prominent roll in the history of our people.
After all it was volunteers that made parliament’s victory in the English Civil War possible. It was volunteers who formed the core of the Continental Army that won the American War of Independence. Volunteers by the millions carried the American republic on their bayonets through four long hard years of war.
In this last context one might point to the politicization of the Union Army, those dreadful mercenaries, who voted overwhelmingly for one party during the election of 1864 but if I noted who they voted for and which party against, I might be accused of “questioning the patriotism” of Arkin or even of waving the bloody shirt.
Nor is this the end of volunteers in the history of our people. The Spanish American war was fought by “mercenaries” most famously the Rough Riders a.k.a. the 1st U.S. Volunteer Cavalry Regiment. The Boer War was fought by “mercenaries” from Great Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Cape Colony and Natal.
Among the English Speaking People the draft is an innovation first seen (briefly) in the American Civil War and more frequently during the 20th Century. It is my hope that aside from militia forces for local defense, conscription will never be seen again among our people. Lets leave conscription to the French who invented it and the Germans who perfected it.
After all it was volunteers that made parliament’s victory in the English Civil War possible. It was volunteers who formed the core of the Continental Army that won the American War of Independence. Volunteers by the millions carried the American republic on their bayonets through four long hard years of war.
In this last context one might point to the politicization of the Union Army, those dreadful mercenaries, who voted overwhelmingly for one party during the election of 1864 but if I noted who they voted for and which party against, I might be accused of “questioning the patriotism” of Arkin or even of waving the bloody shirt.
Nor is this the end of volunteers in the history of our people. The Spanish American war was fought by “mercenaries” most famously the Rough Riders a.k.a. the 1st U.S. Volunteer Cavalry Regiment. The Boer War was fought by “mercenaries” from Great Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Cape Colony and Natal.
Among the English Speaking People the draft is an innovation first seen (briefly) in the American Civil War and more frequently during the 20th Century. It is my hope that aside from militia forces for local defense, conscription will never be seen again among our people. Lets leave conscription to the French who invented it and the Germans who perfected it.
Abraham Lincoln’s Birthday
Today is the 198th anniversary of the birth of a great leader of our people, Abraham Lincoln 16th President of the United States. I could write much about him, but I will just let his own words, spoken at the dedication of Gettysburg National Cemetery durring the third anglosphere civil war speak for him.
“Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate—we can not consecrate—we can not hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”
“Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate—we can not consecrate—we can not hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”
Sunday, February 11, 2007
The Eton Wall Game, Making a Mystery of the Commonplace
I am taking keyboard in hand today to write about a rather off beat subject, the Eton Wall Game. I want to start by saying that the title of this little post is not meant to put down the Eton Wall Game, but to explain it. Not the rules of the game, those I barely understand, in fact I am not sure you could understand the published rules (here) without looking at the wall and field where it is played and seeing a game or having it described by a player, and that is the point of this post.
From my own experience and from what friends from various back grounds have told me of their own childhood, it is safe to say that young people adopt, mix, and create games that fit their specific circumstances. Tag, soccer, baseball, rugby, American football, when they are played by actual boys (and girls to) on a particular playing field, have their rules adopted to the circumstances of the playing field and of the players. These adoptions are often so extensive as to make the game very different often nearly non understandable to outsiders.
This, it is obvious, is what the Eton Wall Game is all about, a rugby-soccer type game played on a particular field, at a particular school, in Berkshire, the United Kingdom. To prove this point the goals are at one end of the sport’s only playing field, a door and at the other end a tree. (more details here) There is nothing weird about this, on the contrary it is wonderful that the boys at Eton have cared enough about themselves and their school to perpetuate a tradition of play over more than two hundred years and to write down the rules.
However to read some articles about the Wall Game you would think it was either a) something special that only those superior beings who go to Eton could play or b) something foolish that only the under brained off spring of those with more money than sense would play, and in either case mysterious and non understandable. It is neither, it is one of probably 50,000 (or more) different games played on specific lots or fields around the world by a limited number of specific children.
What is interesting about the Eton Wall Game is that by the fame of the school, it draws ones attention to a commonplace phenomenon. It is at once an example of Hayekian spontaneous order (the boys didn’t set out to start a great tradition, they just wanted to have fun) and of Burke’s particularism (it would be pointless to try and make the Wall Game a widespread game with a fixed type of playing field like soccer) It reminds us both that social order does not have to be externally imposed and that general principals however true and important must develop in their own organic way in each specific context.
From my own experience and from what friends from various back grounds have told me of their own childhood, it is safe to say that young people adopt, mix, and create games that fit their specific circumstances. Tag, soccer, baseball, rugby, American football, when they are played by actual boys (and girls to) on a particular playing field, have their rules adopted to the circumstances of the playing field and of the players. These adoptions are often so extensive as to make the game very different often nearly non understandable to outsiders.
This, it is obvious, is what the Eton Wall Game is all about, a rugby-soccer type game played on a particular field, at a particular school, in Berkshire, the United Kingdom. To prove this point the goals are at one end of the sport’s only playing field, a door and at the other end a tree. (more details here) There is nothing weird about this, on the contrary it is wonderful that the boys at Eton have cared enough about themselves and their school to perpetuate a tradition of play over more than two hundred years and to write down the rules.
However to read some articles about the Wall Game you would think it was either a) something special that only those superior beings who go to Eton could play or b) something foolish that only the under brained off spring of those with more money than sense would play, and in either case mysterious and non understandable. It is neither, it is one of probably 50,000 (or more) different games played on specific lots or fields around the world by a limited number of specific children.
What is interesting about the Eton Wall Game is that by the fame of the school, it draws ones attention to a commonplace phenomenon. It is at once an example of Hayekian spontaneous order (the boys didn’t set out to start a great tradition, they just wanted to have fun) and of Burke’s particularism (it would be pointless to try and make the Wall Game a widespread game with a fixed type of playing field like soccer) It reminds us both that social order does not have to be externally imposed and that general principals however true and important must develop in their own organic way in each specific context.
Saturday, February 10, 2007
Letter to the globe re AGW
I wrote the following as a letter to a writer at the Boston Globe
I was really shocked to read the following in your column, “ I would like to say we're at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.”
This is simply not true. (What is denying the factuality of future events? They haven’t happened yet so theories that claim to describe them can’t be true or false) (note: the theory could be, but we couldn't tell until the future occured) However, the differences in evidence for the two events is instructive.
I have seen movies of the newly liberated camps, the corpses of those who died after liberation stacked like wood. I have meet survivors of the camps, my friends and relatives have meet others. I have read in part, the record and evidentiary documents of the Nuremburg trials. I have meet some of the prosecutors, doctors, and guards who served at Nuremburg and who spoke with the perpetrators. The holocaust undeniably happened. It is a fact of history.
The theory of human caused global warming is an opinion. While I am a non scientist, I have meet scientists, (none employed by the oil industry) who do not believe the earth is getting warmer. I have meet ones who are unsure if the earth is getting warmer. I have meet ones who are sure the earth is getting warmer, but are not at all sure that it is cause by humans. I have meet ones who believe it is getting warmer and that humans caused it. Is this consensus? (Leaving alone the value of consensus in science)
I am of course, not a scientist, but as a citizen of the Republic and as a human being, I take my responsibility to keep abreast of the debate on global warming seriously. I try to figure out what would be happening if this or that explanation was true. What I have read and observed leads me to believe that the earth may be getting warmer, but it may not. The cause (if there is global warming) is to my mind far from clear. CO2 is undoubtedly a greenhouse gas, but is it the cause of the warming that has been observed, (which is far from global by the way, mostly observable in the northern hemisphere) that is not certain. As I say, I am not a scientist, but I am trying to figure out what is going on.
From the above, I conclude that we need to spend a great deal of money on research to figure out what is happening. (I also recommend real estate investment in more northerly climes as a hedge against the possibility of global warming)
I am not impressed by a political statement that is allegedly based on a scientific document that has yet to be released. (Why weren’t they released at the same time? Desire to make the later conform to the former?) The fact that the report is released by the UN and under the approving sponsorship of 100 governments makes me the more nervous. The UN and governments have a huge interest in finding warming. It gives them a reason to expand their power. Have we learned nothing from the 20th century? Then there is the whole religious angle, global warming lets atheists (of which I am one) get in on the whole fire and brimstone act. Also look at the very real religious aspects of the environmental movement and look at its historical roots in the 20s and 30s.
The last thing that I want to say (which I hope you will not take to personally) is that while I am now a law student, I was for three years (Nov. 2000- Nov. 2003) a reporter. I saw the crap that came into the newsroom from all sorts of organizations in their press releases. I, trying to sort the wheat from the chaff would do a quick bit of research and call up the sender and ask a few critical questions. While most senders were full of it, three groups stand out in my mind, corporations, governments and environmental groups. The last were by far the worst offenders. They had the most slender evidence and made the most of what they had. I can’t be alone in this experience. Why, when a document (basically a press release) that is produced by a collaboration of governments and the environmental movement comes out, is meet with so little critical examination?
Very Sincerely Yours,
Stephen W. Houghton II
I was really shocked to read the following in your column, “ I would like to say we're at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.”
This is simply not true. (What is denying the factuality of future events? They haven’t happened yet so theories that claim to describe them can’t be true or false) (note: the theory could be, but we couldn't tell until the future occured) However, the differences in evidence for the two events is instructive.
I have seen movies of the newly liberated camps, the corpses of those who died after liberation stacked like wood. I have meet survivors of the camps, my friends and relatives have meet others. I have read in part, the record and evidentiary documents of the Nuremburg trials. I have meet some of the prosecutors, doctors, and guards who served at Nuremburg and who spoke with the perpetrators. The holocaust undeniably happened. It is a fact of history.
The theory of human caused global warming is an opinion. While I am a non scientist, I have meet scientists, (none employed by the oil industry) who do not believe the earth is getting warmer. I have meet ones who are unsure if the earth is getting warmer. I have meet ones who are sure the earth is getting warmer, but are not at all sure that it is cause by humans. I have meet ones who believe it is getting warmer and that humans caused it. Is this consensus? (Leaving alone the value of consensus in science)
I am of course, not a scientist, but as a citizen of the Republic and as a human being, I take my responsibility to keep abreast of the debate on global warming seriously. I try to figure out what would be happening if this or that explanation was true. What I have read and observed leads me to believe that the earth may be getting warmer, but it may not. The cause (if there is global warming) is to my mind far from clear. CO2 is undoubtedly a greenhouse gas, but is it the cause of the warming that has been observed, (which is far from global by the way, mostly observable in the northern hemisphere) that is not certain. As I say, I am not a scientist, but I am trying to figure out what is going on.
From the above, I conclude that we need to spend a great deal of money on research to figure out what is happening. (I also recommend real estate investment in more northerly climes as a hedge against the possibility of global warming)
I am not impressed by a political statement that is allegedly based on a scientific document that has yet to be released. (Why weren’t they released at the same time? Desire to make the later conform to the former?) The fact that the report is released by the UN and under the approving sponsorship of 100 governments makes me the more nervous. The UN and governments have a huge interest in finding warming. It gives them a reason to expand their power. Have we learned nothing from the 20th century? Then there is the whole religious angle, global warming lets atheists (of which I am one) get in on the whole fire and brimstone act. Also look at the very real religious aspects of the environmental movement and look at its historical roots in the 20s and 30s.
The last thing that I want to say (which I hope you will not take to personally) is that while I am now a law student, I was for three years (Nov. 2000- Nov. 2003) a reporter. I saw the crap that came into the newsroom from all sorts of organizations in their press releases. I, trying to sort the wheat from the chaff would do a quick bit of research and call up the sender and ask a few critical questions. While most senders were full of it, three groups stand out in my mind, corporations, governments and environmental groups. The last were by far the worst offenders. They had the most slender evidence and made the most of what they had. I can’t be alone in this experience. Why, when a document (basically a press release) that is produced by a collaboration of governments and the environmental movement comes out, is meet with so little critical examination?
Very Sincerely Yours,
Stephen W. Houghton II
Friday, February 02, 2007
Happy Birthday AR
Today is the 102nd Aniversery of the birth of one of the 20th Century's heros, Ayn Rand.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Royal America?
Michael Barone has a piece that is to me both interesting and sad. (hat tip instapundit) With the candidacy of Senator Clinton, he asks is not the presidency of United States taking on a touch of Royalism. “Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton. It sounds like the Wars of the Roses: Lancaster, York, Lancaster, York.”
Those who have read my work, know that as a theoretical matter, I consider a well designed constitutional monarchy to be the best form of government. However, I believe that since in fact American liberty was won-defended as a historical achievement by republican (in the narrow sense) governments and enshrined in our republican constitution, it would be dangerous to liberty to abandon our constitution.
Further I admit to a desire to keep the experiment in non-monarchical government going for as long as it protects most liberties. This is motivated by both patriotic sentiment and scientific curiosity. It is for me a passionate hope that I will died and my children, grand children and great grandchildren should live and die as citizens of the Republic. However if the American people really want a royal family to ogle at and be the center of national life then let us not accept the pallid substitute of the Bushes, Clintons, and Kennedys.
For 169 years from 1607 to 1776, what is now the United States was reigned over by a royal house who’s pomp and majesty has never been surpassed and which was and to a greater extent today is relatively amiable to liberty. If we really mean after 231 proud years to bring our experiment in non monarchical government to an end, then I have a suggestion.
She is the High and Mighty Princess Elizabeth Alexandra Mary by the grace of God of Antigua and Barbuda, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Commonwealth of the Bahamas, Barbados, the Confederation of Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, the Dominion of New Zealand, Saint Lucia, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and her other territories, Queen, Duke of Normandy and Lord of Mann
She would be a most suitable head of state both because she is the legitimate claimant and because she is a women of rare dignity and vast experience. To give but one example her first Prime Minister was Sir Winston Churchill, she has been reading the dispatch boxes for 55 years. We could even keep the republic titularly non monarchical by calling her Lady Defender of the Republic or some such. If we really wanted to restore the monarchy there is even a suitable event coming up, she is scheduled to attend the 400th anniversary of the settlement of Jamestown this summer (she also attended the 350th).
However if we want to keep the Republic non monarchical, than we ought not to keep electing people from the same families to be chief magistrate. I for one am looking forward to Elizabeth’s diamond jubilee in 2012 when I hope she will still reign over all 16 of the Commonwealth Relms, I do not want the United States to be one of them.
Long Live The Republic!
Those who have read my work, know that as a theoretical matter, I consider a well designed constitutional monarchy to be the best form of government. However, I believe that since in fact American liberty was won-defended as a historical achievement by republican (in the narrow sense) governments and enshrined in our republican constitution, it would be dangerous to liberty to abandon our constitution.
Further I admit to a desire to keep the experiment in non-monarchical government going for as long as it protects most liberties. This is motivated by both patriotic sentiment and scientific curiosity. It is for me a passionate hope that I will died and my children, grand children and great grandchildren should live and die as citizens of the Republic. However if the American people really want a royal family to ogle at and be the center of national life then let us not accept the pallid substitute of the Bushes, Clintons, and Kennedys.
For 169 years from 1607 to 1776, what is now the United States was reigned over by a royal house who’s pomp and majesty has never been surpassed and which was and to a greater extent today is relatively amiable to liberty. If we really mean after 231 proud years to bring our experiment in non monarchical government to an end, then I have a suggestion.
She is the High and Mighty Princess Elizabeth Alexandra Mary by the grace of God of Antigua and Barbuda, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Commonwealth of the Bahamas, Barbados, the Confederation of Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, the Dominion of New Zealand, Saint Lucia, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and her other territories, Queen, Duke of Normandy and Lord of Mann
She would be a most suitable head of state both because she is the legitimate claimant and because she is a women of rare dignity and vast experience. To give but one example her first Prime Minister was Sir Winston Churchill, she has been reading the dispatch boxes for 55 years. We could even keep the republic titularly non monarchical by calling her Lady Defender of the Republic or some such. If we really wanted to restore the monarchy there is even a suitable event coming up, she is scheduled to attend the 400th anniversary of the settlement of Jamestown this summer (she also attended the 350th).
However if we want to keep the Republic non monarchical, than we ought not to keep electing people from the same families to be chief magistrate. I for one am looking forward to Elizabeth’s diamond jubilee in 2012 when I hope she will still reign over all 16 of the Commonwealth Relms, I do not want the United States to be one of them.
Long Live The Republic!
Thursday, December 14, 2006
Speaking the life of Augusto Pinochet Ugarte
I take keyboard in hand today to speak the public life of Augusto Pinochet Ugarte.
He was born 25 November 1915 in Valparaiso, Chile the son of Augusto Pinochet Vera and Avelina Ugarte Martinez. He married Lucia Hiriart Rodriguez in 1943. They had three daughters Lucía, María Verónica, Jacqueline Marie and two sons Augusto Osvaldo and Marco Antonio. He died 10 December, 2006 in Santiago de Chile.
Augusto Pinochet Ugarte graduated from the Millitary School of the Republic of Chile in 1937 and served the Republic of Chile for the rest of his life. After many commands at the company, battalion, regimental, and division level he was appointed General Chief of Staff of the Army in 1972 and Army Commander in Chief in 1973. He lead the armed forces in a revolt against the usurping president Salvador Allende. He reformed the laws and constitution of the republic and after losing a plebiscite called for by his own reforms stepped down from the presidency peacefully and returned to his role as commander in chief and later senator for life. He died surrounded by family and honored by a grateful nation. Isn’t that a nice story.
Augusto Pinochet Ugarte over threw the legitimately elected president of the Republic of Chile. His coup was a violent one and the early years of his rule bloody and tyrannical. It is believed that about 3,000 people suffered extrajudicial execution during the course of his rule and that an additional 20,000 were tortured. His policies were by no means all successful. During the course of his rule he used his office to personally enrich himself. In short he was a murdering, torturing, thieving dictator . In retirement he was pursued by public prosecutors from many nations, including his own. He is a warning to all those who would over through legitimately elected governments. Isn’t that a nice morality tale.
The truth of course is somewhere in between these two caricatures of his life. I am in fact writing today to commemorate the life of a man who if the Catholics are right about the afterlife, will if he avoids roasting in hell, spend a very long time in purgatory.
At his death, he stands reviled as a murderious dictator. This is of course true, but neither is it the whole truth. In justice to the memory of Pinochet, it is important to lay out the context in which the coup of the 11th of September 1973 took place.
The first thing to remember about the coup is that the government of Salvador Allende which he over threw was by no means a functioning republic. On the contrary, under Allende the rule of law had been suspended in favor of extra judicial expropriation, the suppression of a free press, and rule by decree. The orders of courts of the republic were being routinely disregarded. The power of the printing press was being used to inflate the currency to deliberately impoverish the middle class. His supporters were being organized into armed militias independent of legal state control. Allende was in fact in the middle of establishing a dictatorship of the proletariat.
The situation had reached the point where the supreme court had publicly issued a unanimous resolution denouncing the Allende government for its “ disruption of the legality of the nation.”
On August 22, 1973 the chamber of deputies adopted by a vote of 81 to 47 a resolution charging the Allende government with attempting “to conquer absolute power with the obvious purpose of subjecting all citizens to the strictest political and economic control by the state... [with] the goal of establishing a totalitarian system." This resolution called on the military to over through the government.
Now none of this can excuse many of the later actions of Pinochet, but it does explain why he and the rest of the Chilean military decided to over through the government of President Allende.
The second thing it is important to remember is that Augusto Pinochet is by no means the only dictator in the history of the 20th Century. To fairly evaluate his life he must be evaluated against his peers, that is to say his fellow dictators. In this context we must evaluate several things, the oppressiveness of his regime, how he behaved himself personally as head of state and government, and what was the result of his extra legal rule.
One extremely crude measure of oppressiveness is the number of people killed in extra judicial killings. It is undisputed that about 3,000 Chileans were killed outside of the normal processes of law, mostly during the early days of the military government. To compare this to Stalin, one of the most bloody dictators in history, if the same proportion of the population was killed, under Pinochet as under Stalin, about 2 million, instead of 3,000 people would have died. That is to say about a 1,000 times as many. Another standard of comparison would be the dictatorship of the same period in Argentina where about 20,000 people “disappeared.” Argentina has about 2.5 times the population of Chile. The Argentine dictatorship was about three times as bloody as Pinochet’s regime.
Pinochet clearly did not act personally as head of state and government in a manner that was above reproach. He accumulated a large fortune that he stole from the government and people of Chile. That this is the predictable out come of absolute power is shown by the vast majority of his fellow dictators who personally enriched themselves at the expense of their people. As Lord Acton wrote, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Most dictatorships end in one of two ways. Ether the dictator is himself overthrown or assassinated, or he clings to power until his death. In either case the state is left in a state of chaos. It is to Pinochet’s credit that he voluntarily established a new constitutional order and that when, in accordance with that law, he had to relinquish power, he did so. His economic policies were a mixed bag, but generally positive. Since the end of his rule, Chile has been a prosperous democratic republic.
That as dictators go he was not totally blood soaked and that he reestablished a constitutional system of government, of course does not excuse his many sins, but it does put them in perspective.
A third point that I think needs to be considered is to look at a counterfactual example.
If during the early years of his rule, the German army had revolted against Adolph Hitler, the 20th Century would be considerably less bloody. The army considered it several times. Knowing what we know now, if the army had in 36, 38, or 39 risen against the government, they would have earned eternal glory.
However if they had done so, we would never have known how awful Hitler’s regime would have been. Would the German army have been praised or vilified? After all, they would have had to have killed a lot of Nazis to take power. They would likely have put a stop to Hitler’s social programs.
If the army had overthrown the National Socialist German Workers Party would they be remembered as the crushers of a potential democratic socialist state? Remember Hitler was elected and on a national welfare platform not so different from Allende‘s. Would Hitler in that event have been seen in retrospect as the poor well meaning social reformer who was gunned down by the ruthless army? We will never know, because the German army failed to act.
If Allende had not be overthrown would he now be known as the founder of a foul and murderous socialist dictatorship. Would people be saying “what if” and “why didn’t” the Chilean army over though Allende while there was still time? We will never know, because Pinochet did not fail to act.
This of course does not excuse the excesses to which Pinochet went, but it does caution us against blind condemnation.
So, on Sunday died a man who should be condemned for his crimes, but not out of proportion to his crimes.
If that sounds ambivalent, it is so for a reason. If a consistent standard was applied to former dictators, I would be more inclined to be condemnatory, but this is unfortunately not the case.
How many African dictators have committed absolutely or proportionately more killing than Pinochet, totally impoverished their people, equivalently enriched themselves, left a worse state of affairs to their successors, clung to power till the end and then been buried with plaudits to “the father of the nation” or at least allowed death in the dignity of unnoticed anonymity.
I guess my over all ambivalence can be summed up by a story about Ayn Rand. She received a letter asking her to join a group of writers condemning Father Coughlin. The group was an obvious socialist front and Rand wrote back that she would be happy to join when the group was against Father Coughlin and X, Y, and Z other left wing totalitarian public personalities, “but not until then comrades, not until then.”
So to paraphrase Shakespeare, as Augusto Pinochet Ungarte was a patriot, I praise him, as he was a good soldier, I admire him, as he overthrew a usurper, I proclaim him, but as he was a tyrant, I condemn him. The evil a man does lives after him, the good is oft interred with his bones, so let it be with Pinochet, but that won’t be the whole truth.
Update: BTW I have had responses from people who seem to think that I think we should go easy on Pinochet. On the contrary, I think he should have been tried for what he did, just as the Nazis were tried at the end of the Second World War. I just think we should be more consistent about it. How many communist dictators are living out their last days in peace? Will they receive international condemnation when they die? So by all means lets shoot ALL former dictators or at least write nasty things about them when they die of natural causes, but not some of them.
He was born 25 November 1915 in Valparaiso, Chile the son of Augusto Pinochet Vera and Avelina Ugarte Martinez. He married Lucia Hiriart Rodriguez in 1943. They had three daughters Lucía, María Verónica, Jacqueline Marie and two sons Augusto Osvaldo and Marco Antonio. He died 10 December, 2006 in Santiago de Chile.
Augusto Pinochet Ugarte graduated from the Millitary School of the Republic of Chile in 1937 and served the Republic of Chile for the rest of his life. After many commands at the company, battalion, regimental, and division level he was appointed General Chief of Staff of the Army in 1972 and Army Commander in Chief in 1973. He lead the armed forces in a revolt against the usurping president Salvador Allende. He reformed the laws and constitution of the republic and after losing a plebiscite called for by his own reforms stepped down from the presidency peacefully and returned to his role as commander in chief and later senator for life. He died surrounded by family and honored by a grateful nation. Isn’t that a nice story.
Augusto Pinochet Ugarte over threw the legitimately elected president of the Republic of Chile. His coup was a violent one and the early years of his rule bloody and tyrannical. It is believed that about 3,000 people suffered extrajudicial execution during the course of his rule and that an additional 20,000 were tortured. His policies were by no means all successful. During the course of his rule he used his office to personally enrich himself. In short he was a murdering, torturing, thieving dictator . In retirement he was pursued by public prosecutors from many nations, including his own. He is a warning to all those who would over through legitimately elected governments. Isn’t that a nice morality tale.
The truth of course is somewhere in between these two caricatures of his life. I am in fact writing today to commemorate the life of a man who if the Catholics are right about the afterlife, will if he avoids roasting in hell, spend a very long time in purgatory.
At his death, he stands reviled as a murderious dictator. This is of course true, but neither is it the whole truth. In justice to the memory of Pinochet, it is important to lay out the context in which the coup of the 11th of September 1973 took place.
The first thing to remember about the coup is that the government of Salvador Allende which he over threw was by no means a functioning republic. On the contrary, under Allende the rule of law had been suspended in favor of extra judicial expropriation, the suppression of a free press, and rule by decree. The orders of courts of the republic were being routinely disregarded. The power of the printing press was being used to inflate the currency to deliberately impoverish the middle class. His supporters were being organized into armed militias independent of legal state control. Allende was in fact in the middle of establishing a dictatorship of the proletariat.
The situation had reached the point where the supreme court had publicly issued a unanimous resolution denouncing the Allende government for its “ disruption of the legality of the nation.”
On August 22, 1973 the chamber of deputies adopted by a vote of 81 to 47 a resolution charging the Allende government with attempting “to conquer absolute power with the obvious purpose of subjecting all citizens to the strictest political and economic control by the state... [with] the goal of establishing a totalitarian system." This resolution called on the military to over through the government.
Now none of this can excuse many of the later actions of Pinochet, but it does explain why he and the rest of the Chilean military decided to over through the government of President Allende.
The second thing it is important to remember is that Augusto Pinochet is by no means the only dictator in the history of the 20th Century. To fairly evaluate his life he must be evaluated against his peers, that is to say his fellow dictators. In this context we must evaluate several things, the oppressiveness of his regime, how he behaved himself personally as head of state and government, and what was the result of his extra legal rule.
One extremely crude measure of oppressiveness is the number of people killed in extra judicial killings. It is undisputed that about 3,000 Chileans were killed outside of the normal processes of law, mostly during the early days of the military government. To compare this to Stalin, one of the most bloody dictators in history, if the same proportion of the population was killed, under Pinochet as under Stalin, about 2 million, instead of 3,000 people would have died. That is to say about a 1,000 times as many. Another standard of comparison would be the dictatorship of the same period in Argentina where about 20,000 people “disappeared.” Argentina has about 2.5 times the population of Chile. The Argentine dictatorship was about three times as bloody as Pinochet’s regime.
Pinochet clearly did not act personally as head of state and government in a manner that was above reproach. He accumulated a large fortune that he stole from the government and people of Chile. That this is the predictable out come of absolute power is shown by the vast majority of his fellow dictators who personally enriched themselves at the expense of their people. As Lord Acton wrote, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Most dictatorships end in one of two ways. Ether the dictator is himself overthrown or assassinated, or he clings to power until his death. In either case the state is left in a state of chaos. It is to Pinochet’s credit that he voluntarily established a new constitutional order and that when, in accordance with that law, he had to relinquish power, he did so. His economic policies were a mixed bag, but generally positive. Since the end of his rule, Chile has been a prosperous democratic republic.
That as dictators go he was not totally blood soaked and that he reestablished a constitutional system of government, of course does not excuse his many sins, but it does put them in perspective.
A third point that I think needs to be considered is to look at a counterfactual example.
If during the early years of his rule, the German army had revolted against Adolph Hitler, the 20th Century would be considerably less bloody. The army considered it several times. Knowing what we know now, if the army had in 36, 38, or 39 risen against the government, they would have earned eternal glory.
However if they had done so, we would never have known how awful Hitler’s regime would have been. Would the German army have been praised or vilified? After all, they would have had to have killed a lot of Nazis to take power. They would likely have put a stop to Hitler’s social programs.
If the army had overthrown the National Socialist German Workers Party would they be remembered as the crushers of a potential democratic socialist state? Remember Hitler was elected and on a national welfare platform not so different from Allende‘s. Would Hitler in that event have been seen in retrospect as the poor well meaning social reformer who was gunned down by the ruthless army? We will never know, because the German army failed to act.
If Allende had not be overthrown would he now be known as the founder of a foul and murderous socialist dictatorship. Would people be saying “what if” and “why didn’t” the Chilean army over though Allende while there was still time? We will never know, because Pinochet did not fail to act.
This of course does not excuse the excesses to which Pinochet went, but it does caution us against blind condemnation.
So, on Sunday died a man who should be condemned for his crimes, but not out of proportion to his crimes.
If that sounds ambivalent, it is so for a reason. If a consistent standard was applied to former dictators, I would be more inclined to be condemnatory, but this is unfortunately not the case.
How many African dictators have committed absolutely or proportionately more killing than Pinochet, totally impoverished their people, equivalently enriched themselves, left a worse state of affairs to their successors, clung to power till the end and then been buried with plaudits to “the father of the nation” or at least allowed death in the dignity of unnoticed anonymity.
I guess my over all ambivalence can be summed up by a story about Ayn Rand. She received a letter asking her to join a group of writers condemning Father Coughlin. The group was an obvious socialist front and Rand wrote back that she would be happy to join when the group was against Father Coughlin and X, Y, and Z other left wing totalitarian public personalities, “but not until then comrades, not until then.”
So to paraphrase Shakespeare, as Augusto Pinochet Ungarte was a patriot, I praise him, as he was a good soldier, I admire him, as he overthrew a usurper, I proclaim him, but as he was a tyrant, I condemn him. The evil a man does lives after him, the good is oft interred with his bones, so let it be with Pinochet, but that won’t be the whole truth.
Update: BTW I have had responses from people who seem to think that I think we should go easy on Pinochet. On the contrary, I think he should have been tried for what he did, just as the Nazis were tried at the end of the Second World War. I just think we should be more consistent about it. How many communist dictators are living out their last days in peace? Will they receive international condemnation when they die? So by all means lets shoot ALL former dictators or at least write nasty things about them when they die of natural causes, but not some of them.
Thursday, December 07, 2006
Dec 7, 1941
Today is the 65th anniversary of the attack on the U.S. navel base Pearl Harbor, T.H. My only though is a depressed reflection on the difference between our reaction to that attack and our reaction to the 9-11 attacks.
Eternal Father Strong to Save
who’s arm hath bound the restless wave.
Whom bids the mighty ocean deep
its own appointed limits keep.
O hear us when we cry to thee
for those in peril on the sea.
UPDATE: It was the 65th not the 75th anniversary.
Eternal Father Strong to Save
who’s arm hath bound the restless wave.
Whom bids the mighty ocean deep
its own appointed limits keep.
O hear us when we cry to thee
for those in peril on the sea.
UPDATE: It was the 65th not the 75th anniversary.
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
AUN! Thoughts: A Day to Remember
Today is the 132nd anniversary of the birth of one of the greatest war leaders in the history of our people, the Right Honorable Sir Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill Knight of the Garter, Order of Merit, Companion of Honor, Fellow of the Royal Society, Privy Counselor, Privy Counselor for Canada, twice Prime Minister, Leader of the House of Commons, Chancellor of the Exchequer, the first ever Minister of Defense, twice First Lord of the Admiralty, Secretary of State for War, Secretary of State for Air, Minister of Munitions, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Home Secretary, President of the Board of Trade, Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports, Elder Brother of Trinity House, Chancellor of the University of Bristol, Father of the House of Commons, Nobel Laureate for Literature, first Honorary Citizen of the United States, etc.
He was born 30 November, 1874 at Blenheim Palace, Oxfordshire, the home of his fathers, the first son of Lord Randolph Churchill and Jennie Jerome. He was a graduate of Harrow and the Royal Military College Sandhurst. He served in India with the 4th (Queen’s Own) Hussars and fought on the Northwest Frontier. He charged with the 21st Lancers at Omdurman, the last real cavalry charge of the British Army. He served with the South African Light House during the Second Boer War. He was elected to parliament for the first time in 1899 and sat almost without interruption through the reign of six monarchs. He joined the cabinet for the first time in 1908. During the First World War he served with the Royal Scots Fusiliers commanding the 6th battalion (territorial army) on the Western Front. He was a journalist, inventor (the patent for the tank), author, painter, soldier, statesman, and quite possibly the savior of western civilization. He was, in short, a very great man.
He died 24 January, 1965 and after a state funeral was laid to rest in the graveyard of St. Martin Church, Bladon a short drive from where he was born. May his memory endure as long as our people.
He was born 30 November, 1874 at Blenheim Palace, Oxfordshire, the home of his fathers, the first son of Lord Randolph Churchill and Jennie Jerome. He was a graduate of Harrow and the Royal Military College Sandhurst. He served in India with the 4th (Queen’s Own) Hussars and fought on the Northwest Frontier. He charged with the 21st Lancers at Omdurman, the last real cavalry charge of the British Army. He served with the South African Light House during the Second Boer War. He was elected to parliament for the first time in 1899 and sat almost without interruption through the reign of six monarchs. He joined the cabinet for the first time in 1908. During the First World War he served with the Royal Scots Fusiliers commanding the 6th battalion (territorial army) on the Western Front. He was a journalist, inventor (the patent for the tank), author, painter, soldier, statesman, and quite possibly the savior of western civilization. He was, in short, a very great man.
He died 24 January, 1965 and after a state funeral was laid to rest in the graveyard of St. Martin Church, Bladon a short drive from where he was born. May his memory endure as long as our people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
