Death by Moderation?

Christopher John Burton: The quandary that we are facing is how to contend with the irony of individuals using the freedoms and traditions of western society in order to destroy it.

Thea Koenig: Perhaps there is a difference between destroy and change? One presumes death as a bad thing. The other perceives change as needed growth to sustain life.

Christopher John Burton: Change is good if it does not destroy the freedom to change.

Thea Koenig: I don't think that is possible. Change is the only constant in this world. Try as one might not to change, change will happen.

Christopher John Burton: I agree that change will always exert itself on every aspect of our lives; affecting technology, the economy, and science. My point is that there are certain inviolate principles that underlie our civilization and if they are subverted we will no longer be free to change. Global communism and global Islam are two forces that are at odds with our fundamental values.

Thea Koenig: Ahhh. Now I know what you are referring to. It is a quandry. It is difficult to know where the balance lies between creating a society in which people work for the common good, and at the same time enjoy personal freedoms to govern their own life as they see fit. Certainly, global Islam and Communism in their extreme forms miss that balance point, as does the conservative Christian movement and Capitalism inits purest form. I think of it like eating....everything in moderation!
Great discussions Chris.
 
Christopher John Burton: Not quite the quandary I was talking about. A tangible example would be the attempt by Islamists to enact Sharia law under the guise of religious freedom. These laws would certainly discriminate against women and subject them to a cultural ghetto where all manner of legal violence could be done upon them. Another example would be the granting of civilian legal protection to non-citizens who engage in acts of terrorism against a country, rather than treating them as irregular enemy combatants under the Geneva Convention. There can be no balance here.

As a libertarian I would of course reject any notion of “the common good” as a basis for depriving an individual of their inalienable rights. Who decides what the common good is and who must suffer to reach those goals. The whole “global warming” fiasco is a good case in point where an elite group of grant recipients are trying to impose their idea of the common good on the rest of us. I would refer you to a recent poll where two thirds of Canadians do not believe that global warming is man-made.
Certainly all of us have an ethical calculus that we use to guide our actions in life. Some are looser than others. In the West we are protected by the rights and traditions we have inherited and evolved from. The question I am struggling with is: What is the proper response to an entity or person who would use our cherished freedom for the expressed goal of subverting those freedoms? My instinct suggests that rational beings should vigorously criticize those within the country who would promote the use of force against us and support the power of government to react violently against those who use that force. Anyone attacking us from outside the country should be treated as an enemy combatant and be defeated militarily or economically. At this point I would say that the line is crossed when violence is initiated.
But how do we deal with the subtle method of incremental defeat through legal and political avenues? The tools used against us are the very same we use to protect ourselves. Our enemies attempt to disarm our response with the judicious use of guilt inspired by a savvy application of political correctness. The only way I can imagine that would stop this erosion would be through ridged constitutionalism which would employ clear and explicit protection for inalienable individual rights – including property rights. The problem with this solution is that we do not have disinterested rational people who know the difference between an entitlement and a right. Any suggestions on resolving this one would be most helpful.
Finally, one comment on the possibility of benign or moderate communism or Islam: These systems by their nature must compel submission from their populations. Any form of moderation would come from outside these systems – either cultural or philosophical forces. Turkey and Indonesia are good examples of countries that have counter-balances to the destructive influence of Islam. However, when regime altering convulsions occur in these countries Islam is always at the root. Perhaps moderate communism can only occur in voluntary congregations like the Mennonites. But, even here people are shunned for trying to leave and live a different life. Global Communism is an ideology that requires everyone to submit to the same rules and therefore cannot exist for long in the presences of freedom (read Capitalism). BTW I would love to hear what you mean by extreme Capitalism.

Thea Koenig: "What do you include in inalienable rights?
Who decides what is the common good, and what the proper response should be to attempts to subvert our freedoms is of course the problem, and I definitely don't have the answer. But I'd like to think, that while it is by no means perfect, our court system has the best shot of getting it right, eventually, as long as there is the freedom to challenge laws and engage in rational debate. Our society has a better chance than most of figuring it out.
Consequently, while it is infuriating that terrorists are afforded the civil rights we enjoy, I think it is important that we use the systems we have for all people charged with criminal acts, otherwise we run the risk of becoming exactly what we don't want to be. I am thinking of rendition, and how the US government, and probably the Canadian government, has been party to all manner of horrific violence against innocent people, in the name of national security.
While I support our government in responding swiftly and with the full force of the law toward anyone promoting and engaging in violent acts, I do not, think that the best way to respond to violence is with more violence. One only needs to look at the on-going battle between Israel and the Arab world to see that violence begets violence...always has, always will. Living in fear and responding with hatred ultimately destroys us.
The best way to preserve the freedoms and inalienable rights we value is to afford those same freedoms to others, and trust in the systems we have set up to work as they were intended.
Wish we lived closer to have these conversations in person. :)"

Christopher J Burton: 17th-century philosopher John Locke discussed natural rights (inalienable rights) in his work, identifying them as being "life, liberty, and estate (property)", and argued that such fundamental rights could not be surrendered in the social contract. Who am I to argue with John Locke – I can live with this list.

The problem lies within the social contract that individuals must rationally abide by in order to live in society. In the last hundred years the one organization that can legally put an individual to death has grown exponentially in power and influence. Unless it is curtailed by clear and exact rules the government will expand into every crevice of one’s life. There will always be vested interests that seek to benefit from the wealth confiscated by the bureaucratic machine. So yes the courts should decide, but within the parameters of tightly defined constitutional limits. The producers in society must have protection from those who would use the power of government to loot their property.
A terrorist is the fundamental enemy of an individual’s inalienable or natural rights – after all he seeks to attain his goals by depriving you of your most valuable possession, your life. Within the confines of Canada I would agree that the alleged terrorist should be availed of due process with the caveat that indiscriminate murder for political reasons should be subject to capital punishment. Timothy McVeigh received an appropriate sentence and justice was done. Outside of Canada terrorism against Canadians becomes an act of war and should be subject to military justice under the provisions of the Geneva Convention for irregular combatants. This would include the interrogation, detainment and possible deportment of these individuals to other jurisdictions. In war the stakes are too high not to use every method available to thwart the enemy’s next attack. I think these rules would keep us exactly as we want to be.
While entertaining for some I remind everyone that the movie “Rendition” is a work of fiction that is heavily biased and shows perhaps at best a potential scenario for wrongful conviction. When convictions cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt the government should make restitution to its citizens as in the Arar case. Foreigners convicted of terrorism should face military justice.
I cannot agree that one can equate initiated violence with reactive violence. One is wrong and the other is morally right and appropriate. Where would Israel be today if it did not have the will to protect itself? If the Arabs would stop initiating violence against Israel there would be peace – but it seems they just can’t stop lobbing missiles into populated areas. Where would all of us be if we did not have the will to stand up to the Axis powers in 1939? Where would the people of the Falkland Islands be if Britain did not have the will to expel the invading Argentine dictatorship? You are right when you say that violence begets violence, so beware all who would start a war. When a country lives in fear of attack and responds with violence fuelled by justifiable contempt they are opting for survival not destruction.
I agree whole heartedly that we must believe in our institutions and the underlying ideals that have created them. All we require is the will to defend what we know is rational and true with the tools we have at our disposal. Within Canada; due process – outside Canada, that is a matter for National Defence.