As I’ve blogged before, I have mixed feelings about Edward Snowden and his revelations about U.S. government spying on everybody. I understand why some consider him a traitor – because yes, we do need to fight Islamic terrorism.
And I understand why some consider him a hero – because we need to fight Islamic terrorism with appropriate tools; not tools that expand government power to the point where it could easily be used (and perhaps already gets used?) for purposes of tyranny. With that in mind, here are a couple of news items:
- China drops Apple, Cisco, Intel and other U.S. tech leaders from its “approved state purchase lists”. China’s action may have several motives; but fear of the expansive NSA spying (that Snowden revealed) is surely among them.
- Snowden gets libertarian, arguing for limited government and the right of the governed (us) to reject excessive government control.
There must always be a balance of power between the governing and the governed…
Our rights are not granted by governments…They are inherent to our nature. But it’s entirely the opposite for governments: their privileges are precisely equal to only those which we suffer them to enjoy.
A viewpoint which all Americans ought to support, considering our origins.
Your thoughts?
While we’re at it: According to The Guardian (a left-wing British paper), Rahm Emanuel’s Chicago Police are running their own black site for secret interrogations – and not just for anti-terrorism. True? Exaggerated? From the comments: A Chicago cop says it’s BS.
Snowden is a Patriot guilty of Treason.
It’s important to remember that many long term paying members of the Libertarian party believe the National Party has moved left. Many state and local libertarian parties do not agree with the National party platform. For instance, open boarders do not work when you have an existing blown out of all proportion welfare state.
He an example of supreme naivete. His opinion on “rights” marks him as American. But our Constitution grants our rights to us, describing their inherent nature. However, governments automatically restrict rights.
He’s not a Libertarian, he’s an anarchist by every thought & deed. The kind of anarchist that societies lock up permanently or execute.
I also, understand people who think he’s either hero or traitor. But the fact is, he’s put our society at risk by his actions. Revealing the extent of government surveillance, in the manner that he’s done, is treasonous. His anarchy is revealed in his inability to whistleblow in an appropriate manner. To his political representative &/or to American press in a responsible way.
Objectively, he’s not a patriot or loyal citizen, when he attacks the government.
The Libertarians I know, use the Constitution as their basis for judging rights & governmental limits.
That’s my take on the matter.
He’s a young idealist thug, who decided to do something consequential, with no experience in life to guide his actions.
He’ll have to continue to hide & he will end badly, someday.
@ Marc: Snowden seems to have planned this out far more than you give him credit for. He has prepared little presents for certain scenarios. Martial law declared? Boom, the name, address, and family members of every LEO in the country are released into the public domain. Elections suspended? Same for every member of Congress and federal employee. Direct seizure of the economy? Same for every C-level officer in the country. And if Mr. Snowden is arrested, “commits suicide,” or “has an accident”? It all gets dumped.
He’s planned this with such foresight that it’s kinda admirable in a “Rommel, you magnificent bastard!” kind of way.
I’d say that it *recognizes* our rights (many of which pre-exist the Constitution, and so do not come as a grant).
I’d also point out that Snowden’s stated philosophy is minarchist (rather than anarchist). If he’s really an anarchist, then he must be lying about his minarchism. I’m not taking any stand on that question, yet; only pointing out the implication for more discussion.
@ ILC: I can’t speak for whether or not Snowden is a minarchist. I know that’s my essential political philosophy, and I would’ve hesitated to do what he did.
Wrt rights, those are fuzzy things. Many classical liberals say that certain rights are God-given, or are inherit in the world, but these rights are not universally espoused by all people or governments. If I say “I have the right to life,” and somebody walks up and shoots me, did I really have a right to life? Perhaps, but unless I have the ability to preserve my life, or somebody decides to preserve my life on my behalf that right is not defensible, and is, in a purely mechanical sense, nonexistent.
Re: the Chicago PD’s “black site”, this Chicago cop’s blog (which is worth a look now and then) says “BS”.
http://secondcitycop.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-disappearedhahahaha.html
As far as Snowden and surveillance within the US: John Derbyshire has written repeatedly that we need maximum liberty within the US and maximum security at the borders. As long as we leave our borders open and keep importing people from, uh, troublesome regions into our country – a growing fifth column – there is justification for surveillance. But our rulers have determined that wave after wave if unvetted immigrants carries more benefit (to someone) than risk.
The problem I have with Snowden is that the little twerp took in on himself to make decisions without knowing everything and because if something terrible happens due to his leaks, he bears no responsibility. He also appears to think the US is the only nation listening in. We don’t live in an ideal world and if other nations are planning to harm us, I’d like for those charged with defending the country to get a head’s up.
Yes! A right is a moral principle. The lingo means that you **are right** to do action XYZ (to live, to speak your mind, etc.). The moral principle was/is valid, whether or not somebody wrongs you – i.e., whether or not you are able (or, sadly, unable) to enforce your right in practice.
Note – of course I’m talking about natural rights (which good government recognizes, and tyrannical government does not); and also, about any moral right where government is not normally involved.
There is another category of rights, which I call “artificial rights”, that are created by law/government. For example, your right to a Social Security check at age 65 or whatever. It’s not a natural right. Arguably, it’s even a wrong (a wrong done to the people who must pay for it) – other than the fact that (a) government says you get it, and (b) other people have collected / are collecting on theirs (so why not you also?).
The language of rights can be untangled with clear thinking, and it’s important that we untangle it. Because *confusing* the language of rights is a big part of how people (especially the Left) get away with their many, hideous wrongs.
KCR: That is kind of what I would expect a Chicago cop to say, and he is much shorter on specifics than the Guardian article is. But I’m not saying he’s wrong. His comments are another piece of info (given that it is a Chicago cop saying it) and, as such, I just added it to the main post. Thanks!
@ ILC: I like your definition of rights as moral principles. Still, you have to agree that rights aren’t exactly self-enforcing. They require threat of push-back should they be infringed upon. A right, in essence, is something that you are willing to die for. Put that way, “I’ll die before you take my Social Security away from me!” sounds a tad sillier than “I’ll die before you decide what gods I can and cannot worship!”
Yes. For (genuine) rights to be implemented, it takes actual people who will “do what is right”.
The Guardian, like most journalists, demonstrate the are using terms military/ intelligence terms they don’t understand. A ‘Black’ program or facility is one that doesn’t officially exist and has no overt connection to the government. The reported extraordinary rendition sites in Easter Europe fall into this category, but the Chicago PD site discussed here isn’t – it is a known government facility.
What they discuss here is misdeeds at a known government facility site, putting it more in line with Guantanamo Bay or Abu Ghraib than a ‘Black’ site.
Even atheists fear arguing against god given rights because the only other logical alternative is rights from the barrel of a gun. Snowden is only a traitor if the enemy of Govt is productive people like the Founding Fathers. Chicongo is so dirty with its politics and its non-Asian minority crime if you think Snowden is a traitor than you should support black sites like this. Chicago is one of the places military doctors go to train for war injuries.
Over 10,000 somoli moslems have been dumped in Minnesota brought in using US taxpayer dollars.
One of the main components of American Exceptionalism is that the Constitution grants our essential characteristics by delineation of a few concepts, with flourish to set the actual theme of our republic.
Rights that people think they should have, by nature of just being alive, are restricted elsewhere. Always have been.
If there are restrictions upon freedoms of expression, it’s endemic that periodic restrictions upon inherent human actions can & do happen. Which has been the case this country; but, which have been reversed previously.
If it’s not granted by constitution, contract or law; it can’t be assumed it’s a legal right.
The morality is set, that our Constitution lists & describes actions as existing as an essential constituent to our existence. Therefore; granting these rights to our citizenry & describing our culture of freedom.
@ Marc: But look at places where blasphemy against Muhammed is a capital offense. Large majorities of the people in those countries think that this should be the case, and see our freedom of speech as grave sacrilege. This raises the question of whether all people believe in the same God-given rights; I am inclined to say no, or that different people at least have wildly different conditions on those rights.
Good point, Sean L. Muslims put their devotion to their god before commonsense. Their god is not your god & they live in cultures that qualify as medieval, which have never had industrial revolutions or an Enlightenment.
East is East & West is West & never the twain shall meet. However; Europeans are geared to their own mindset of a supreme authority (with the difference being they do have a history of questioning their princes & consuls) as evidenced by their laws, restrictions & proclivity to a hive mind (socialistic levels).
Thus, American Exceptionalism, which not only the primitive cultures of the ME despise, but Europeans also suspect as heresy against the societies of man.
Jefferson took a 180° & encoded individualism, the pursuit of happiness into our lives. At least we have been granted the right to try.
& yes, I’ve been (rightfully) called a pompous windbag as well as an insufferable dictator but am dutifully quiet & easy going when offered enough cash.
I say this because, I just heard O’Reilly might have indeed embellished his past reporting along the lines of Brian Williams & since O’Reilly is the king of insufferable windbags I’m dully chastened by these current events.
@ Marc: They’ve tried to pin at least two instances of “embellishment” on him, which all follow the same pattern: media picks a story that O’Reilly reported on. A progressive professor then says he/she doesn’t believe O’Reilly. Most if not all witnesses to the event in question are dead. Unfalsifiable accusation!
The fact that the media is jumping from incident to incident suggests to me that they can’t make anything stick to O’Reilly.
Obviously no. But moral truths (including natural rights) are like scientific or logical truths, in that: either they are truths, or they are not. If they are, they remain true regardless of which humans (if any) happen to “believe” them. The fact that many societies can’t recognize some key natural rights, does not undercut natural rights. Rather, it undercuts those societies (or means they’re backward, perhaps savage). Though saying it may trigger some war/terrorism against us, it needs to be said and we should say it.
Considering Rahm has to face a runoff election, I wonder if Chuy Garcia (his opponent) will bring up those police tactics during the campaign.
Chuy is the more liberal/progressive mayoral candidate. He’d be Chicago’s DeBlasio. Rahm is more like Chicago’s Bloomberg, except without the soda ban.
I think I was okay with Snowden until he ran off to Russia and was spouting what a bastion of freedom that country was. I am afraid he didn’t just out bad programs the United States was engaged in, but outted other things in trade for his current living situation. JMHO