From: Phil Osborn (philosborn2001@yahoo.com)
Date: Tue Jul 29 2003 - 19:33:08 MDT
One serious but unaddressed problem with building a
"free state" in today's world is that the existing
states will not let you.
In a Free State, one would presumeably be free to do
whatever non-aggressive thing one wanted. Otherwise,
what point? Use or sale of drugs is non-aggressive.
How long would it take for one of the existing drug
cartels to move in and set up operations, perfectly
peacefully and very likely spreading a piece of their
$billions around to make sure that everyone was happy
and probably behaving like the most perfect neighbor
you could possibly want?
How long would it then take for one of the major
terrorist nations - for example, the U.S.A. - to move
in militarily, as it has elsewhere all over the globe,
to enforce its own version of public policy - killing
drug dealers and anyone who supports them or gets in
the way, and supporting gangs of local thugs to keep
their own hands relatively clean?
After all, they've already killed a few hundred
thousand people (conservatively) directly or
indirectly in various parts of SE Asia or Central or
S. America, and thoroughly destroyed several fairly
advanced 2nd world cultures without any particular
qualms, plus of course putting more people behind bars
here in the land of freedom, both total and
percentagewise, than any other nation on the earth,
all to protect us from our own choices of what to put
in our bodies.
There are other examples... "Kiddy Porn," of course.
Another purely "public policy" law. Recall that they
justify it on the basis that a market in it finances
the exploitation of children. The owner or seller
does not personally have to have done anything
whatsoever to any "child," and the images can even be
of 20-somethings made up to appear younger, or
completely computer generated, for that matter. (And
of course the definition of "child" is purely
arbitrary as well. Most 14 yr. old girls would be
married in most primitive societies, as they are
commonly today in rural Mexico.) But, public policy
uber alles.
And, as a non-U.S. citizen, members of this "free
state" will not qualify now, under the new
interpretation of "rights" by the U.S. state, for
basic human rights, in total contradiction of the
entire basis of the U.S. Constitution, yes, of course,
but so what? The Bush Administration has finally
managed to get de facto and de jure recognition of the
principle that "rights" are something that the state
grants you, and, as such, are whatever the law
defines.
That's the implicit meaning of denying the application
of basic rights - as in the Bill of Rights - to
non-U.S. citizens. That's the whole real point of
detaining those people in the concentration camp in
Guantanamo. If being a non-citizen means you have no
rights, then rights must be something artificial -
like incorporation - which is a fiat of the state. If
so, then the only questions are those of legality.
Clearly if rights is just another name for due
process, then why would we need a "free state"? And,
what, if anything, would the term mean? We are
already perfectly free, almost by definition - free to
do anything legal.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 29 2003 - 19:41:12 MDT