The Orwellian Ideology of 24
One of the major problems experienced by the Fox show's gaggle of bureaucrats is whether or not to ignore liberty in exchange for the capture of terrorists, write Matt McCaffrey. "The common good" is a phrase constantly invoked (as it is in America today) by these characters, whose violations of personal liberty include, but are certainly not limited to, illegal searches, theft, kidnapping, destruction of property, and torture. The show calls to mind the brilliant propaganda films of Leni Riefenstahl. FULL ARTICLE
Comments (75)
Mike Tennant
Of course Matt McCaffrey is correct. Not surprisingly, Rush Limbaugh is one of the biggest fans of the show, has visited the set, gets advance copies of episodes, and even spoke at a conference extolling the virtues of 24-style counterterrorism efforts. Perhaps even more interesting is the fact that the very same day that this piece on Mises.org appeared, Joseph Farah at WorldNetDaily.com wrote a column arguing that the Jack Bauer method of fighting terrorism is the only way to go--that we need Jack Bauer, and that Jack Bauer should be our president. "Mr. Farah, Big Brother is on line two; he'd like to present you with an award."
Published: January 29, 2007 8:39 AM
Tim Kern
Mr. McCaffrey ends with, "It almost makes me want to root for the bad guys."
The enemy of your enemy is not your friend, but merely a convenient coincidence, and needs to be evaluated on his own merits, before becoming called either friend or foe.
If one were to follow the article's logic, perhaps one could discern the show's real purpose: to promote terrorism and anarchy.
Conspiracies, anyone?
Published: January 29, 2007 9:02 AM
David
Of course, the world of TV is not the real world and the word that best captures real-world 'government agents' is not 'ruthlessly efficient', but 'hamfisted'. Even ( or is that 'particularly'?) when they are filling their ordinary crime-control mandate to 'protect and serve'
This stanza from a Tom Waits blues song ($29) says it all:
'Now the siren's just an epilog
Cops always get there too late
They always stop for coffee on the way to the scene of the crime
They always try so hard
to look like movie stars
They couldn't catch a cold
So baby, don't you waste your dime.'
Published: January 29, 2007 9:20 AM
Matt
It's a TV show. The show has picked so many absurd and unrealistic situations. He's about to torture his own brother this season. Jack is frequently put in "no good choice" situations because it makes for good drama.
The show portrays bureaucracy as almost totally inept, and that an individual on the ground is better equipped to make most decisions than even the President. (sounds familiar?) There are some who want to create new laws and expansive programs to "protect" the public, and those who simply want get the job done when the stakes are high, rules be damned. (One can imagine the 10+ opportunities to catch or kill Bin Laden that didn't occur because of bureaucrats who didn't know if it was legal). It is not an endorsement for Feds to ignore the law, but rather the recognition that there are extreme situations for which no law can prepare for, when it is up to the individual to decide the best course of action based on his conscience (moral versus legal).
It's not as if Jack goes unpunished. He had to fake his death, was captured by the Chinese, his wife is dead, and his daughter wants him out of her life. A real Jack Bauer would either be prosecuted for numerous violations of the law or pardoned by the President. It would all depend on the politcal climate.
Published: January 29, 2007 9:27 AM
Brooks Imperial
It is easy to criticize the state on a good day, and especially easy when state actors, faced with exigent and dire circumstances putting many American lives at risk, have to navigate the grey areas of the 4th Amendment. The most important phrase in the 4th Am. is "unreasonable search and seizures" and the most important word in that phrase is "unreasonable." The 4th Am. may be unique in that, as an abstract right, it can only be expressed against the backdrop of circumstances. And it is those circumstances which determine whether an act is reasonable.
I disagree with Mr. McCaffrey. This area of the law, the rights of citizens vs. the interests of the state with regard to search and seizure, is anything but cut and dried. Any 4th Am. analysis must encompass the real circumstances underlying the question of whether a given search or seizure was reasonable. And this requires balancing the rights of one citizen against the risks to many citizens. It's an unfortunate calculus, but that's how it works.
Published: January 29, 2007 9:37 AM
rob
Give me Smallville over 24 anytime. It seems that when the heroes are super, the writers pay more attention to the morality of using force.
Published: January 29, 2007 9:46 AM
Thomas Jackson
I wonder where I can write Miss Manners on the proper methods of interogating a terrorist who is about to unleash a ton of VX on NYC within 24 hours? Aren't we so morally superior by observing civilized guidelines that our enemies will not obey, especially if we can do so over the graves of a million or so fellow citizens?
I suppose the Romans also felt compelled to congratulate themselves for observing the rules of civilization while their barbarian foes were at the gates about to unleash hell on them.
How many civilizations bear the epitah "they observed the rules while their foes did not."
Published: January 29, 2007 9:47 AM
brenner
"I disagree with Mr. McCaffrey. This area of the law, the rights of citizens vs. the interests of the state ....."
Only when one considers the state as some entity on its own. If we look at the state as group of people who claim a right of unilateral violent action over another group, the whole issue of search and seizure becomes moot.
Do I have a right to unilaterally act to trespass on my neighbor's land and look through, confiscate and destroy his stuff if I view him as a threat? If I don't, why does the state?
Published: January 29, 2007 9:58 AM
Brooks Imperial
Mr. Brenner,
Your proposition that the state is really a group of individuals acting as individuals is not plausible. The state may not be a unique corporeal entity, but that hardly changes its nature as a governing body with the power to exercize constitutional authority over individual citizens.
Published: January 29, 2007 10:06 AM
Peter Evans
Mr. McCaffrey seems obsessed with the state to the point where he misses the fact that "the state" would be ineffectual in its pursuit of the common good (i.e. thwarting terrorists) were it not for the individualistic interventions of patriotic Jack Bauer. Drawing an analogy between the "24" crowd's realization that the 'real' terrorist isn't who they first thought it was and "the state" changing the official enemy in mid-speach is, if not deliberatly deceitful, then shockingly superficial. When civilians are caught between the heroes and the bad guys they tend to be, naturally, crushed. Or, shall we say, "victimized"? It's a fun show, but Mr. McCaffery seems to have over-analyzed it. His knee-jerk reaction against "the state" trampling the rights of citizens who are involved with "other concerns" than combatting terrorists permits him to ignore any consideration of the reality of the terrorist threat. With this approach, it's no wonder that he runs the risk of encouraging the bad guys. He, like an unfortunate number of Americans, thinks that we are the bad guys.
Published: January 29, 2007 10:30 AM
Carlos Pronsato
The show and the State want us, the citizen consumer, to put all our attention in the heroic fight against the fanatic foreign agents --so they can enrich themselves with ease before the whole thing collapses.
If we do not have an ongoing fake crises we may wake up to see the sad mess we got into.
If we realize the fragility of the post Baton Rouge economic system and the "cui bono" of the perversion of our life style --we may not go to work tomorrow.
Published: January 29, 2007 10:51 AM
rob
"Mr. Brenner,
Your proposition that the state is really a group of individuals acting as individuals is not plausible. The state may not be a unique corporeal entity, but that hardly changes its nature as a governing body with the power to exercize constitutional authority over individual citizens."
First let me apologize for the double moniker - I just finished some e-mail so I entered my last name, I usually go by rob on this blog (the smallville comment above is mine).
If they are not individuals acting as such, then they must be something else. Your second sentence, although self-contradictory answers this in the exact way I did - namely they are a group of individuals (governing body) that claims a right to unilateral violent action (power to exercise constitutional authority) over others (its citezens).
Published: January 29, 2007 10:56 AM
rob
"...With this approach, it's no wonder that he runs the risk of encouraging the bad guys. He, like an unfortunate number of Americans, thinks that we are the bad guys."
Let's define "we" here. If your use of "we" is referring to most of the folks who live in the U.S.A then "we" are not bad guys - "we" work hard at making life better for ourselves and our family through peaceful, voluntary activities. But if you take "we" to mean the government of the U.S.A then it is hard to say "we" are not bad guys - "we" work hard at violently suppressing the peaceful, voluntary activities of those we claim to rule over.
The point is there are two bad guys here. One who seeks to use the violent death to affect policy change And the one setting the policy. The victim in both cases is the first "we" above.
Published: January 29, 2007 11:14 AM
Brooks Imperial
Mr. Rob Brenner,
The state claims no inherant rights. Our Constitution is a grant of authority for the state to act within legal limits that representatives of the people initially agreed to back in 1789, and that has been amended on numerous occasions since. Our ancestors consented to be governed by this Constitution, which is enforced by state actors under the color of constitutional authority. You can argue that we ought to have a different system of government if you wish, however, you cannot ignore that we have a legitimate system of limited government today. Even with all of the judicial corruptions to our constitutional scheme over the past couple hundred years, our system still contains intrinsic mechanisms for controlling the courts, and amending the Constitution. I know of no other system of government that includes evolutionary devices for orderly progress, or that has been shown to be so resilient and fair as ours.
Published: January 29, 2007 11:17 AM
Rick
It's a TV show. Get over it, and get over yourself. Uh oh, Captain Picard looks like he might violate the Prime Directive on tonight's re-run of Star Trek... better hussle on over and give him a stern talking-to.
Published: January 29, 2007 11:38 AM
happylee
It seems everyone I know watches this show. It must be good. I have refused to get hooked on this drug because when I asked why it's so good, I am told that it has glorious agents of the state protecting the citizens from evil terrorists. Having dealt with my fair share of glorious agents of the state, and knowing for a fact that most of them are dregs who simply could not hold a real job or make a real contribution to society, I choose to avoid watching it. (The Shield, on the other hand, has an nice mix of personalities and comes a little closer to the true nature of glorious agents of state.)
Published: January 29, 2007 12:01 PM
Eric
The show COPS is another show where I found myself rooting for the "bad" guys. All the show seemed to do was follow cops busting drug users. I never saw them catch a burgler or a murderer, just drug busts and to fill in, drunks shouting at their spouses.
I haven't watched 24, since I can no longer stand shows where the heros are government agents. Last week we saw the DEA bust state-legal medical marijuana outlets all over Los Angeles. People were shouting "states rights" as the Federal Government rushed in to fight their other war, the one on some drugs.
Imagine a show where superman or some other heroes come along and wipe out the DEA villians. I don't think this would be permitted in the land of 1984. Maybe 24 is only a tv show, but I bet it works on plenty of the averge minds in America. Here we don't force feed propoganda, like in North Korea, but we're just as effective, we use the trojan horse method. Enough people watch this junk and you'll get enough recruits, maybe even to join the fight against terror in Bush's wars. Let's see, is this on the Fox network? Not surprised.
Published: January 29, 2007 12:14 PM
Brooks Imperial
The writers of 24 are hyhpothesizing around a fundamental problem of our times brought on by terror attacks within our free society. Rather than merely label their work to suit your political predispositions, why not actually contribute a solution to the dilemma of individual rights vs. collective safety? Take one of their scenarios with hard choices and show how you would achieve a better outcome - one that minimizes pain and suffering for the entire society while operating within constitutional limits. Sit back and throw darts about your precious principles if you want, or deal with the modern reality that barbarous belligerents have brought to our shores. The latter would be far more productive.
Published: January 29, 2007 12:15 PM
darjen
Brooks:
This could certainly be debated.
No system of government is fair or promotes orderly progress. Unless the "orderly progress" you speak of consists of mass murder in cold blood.
Published: January 29, 2007 12:22 PM
Brooks Imperial
Mr. Darjen,
You haven't persuaded me.
Published: January 29, 2007 12:27 PM
Lisa Casanova
Brooks,
If we sell out all of our principles in order to "protect" a society supposedly built on those principles, what do we have left? That's like a Christian saying he's going to murder everyone who doesn't believe so that he can live in a Christian society once they're all dead. There's a fundamental contradiction.
Published: January 29, 2007 12:34 PM
darjen
Brooks,
is there anything I could say that would persuade you?
Published: January 29, 2007 12:37 PM
Rick
Wow, Darjen, your preference for glittery buzzwords and broad, vague ideas makes me wonder if you belong with the socialists and nanny-state crybabies.
Published: January 29, 2007 12:47 PM
Brooks Imperial
Ms. Casanova,
The principle at stake in 24 is embodied in the language of the 4th Amendment - "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures[.]" This is a specific right and it arises in specific contexts.
The Framers didn't give us a broad enforceable 4th Am. right in the Constitution as was contained, for example, in the Declaration of Independence in the language "life, liberty and the persuit of happiness." And the Declaration of Independence is NOT enforceable like the Constitution. The Declaration, however, does lay out the broad strokes of the scheme - "to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed[.]" This is where we are today.
So, before you reach a conclusion that a 4th Am. search or seizure (of persons or things) has been unconstitutional, you have to analyze the facts surrounding the search or seizure to determine what was reasonable, or unreasonable, at the time. Here for example, the proximate risk of a nuclear bomb blowing up in the middle of LA substantially moves the bar for what becomes reasonable in the state's efforts to prevent such a tragedy. Searches and seizures that would be clearly unreasonable in, for example, the enforcement of a speeding ticket (without some extraneous probable cause), could be very reasonable in the attempt to stop a nuclear bomb from going off in a city.
So my point is, you can't argue the legal substance of 24 in the abstract. The 4th Am. right is not complete in the abstract.
Published: January 29, 2007 12:56 PM
patrick
I have never watched an episode, but I would have to agree in broad terms with you about the covert influence fiction has over our minds, even if you don't realize it. Even if it is "just a TV show", unless you've given deep thought and devoted much research to the subject, have formed a well-based opinion, AND can understand the pschology behind how you are being influenced, then it is extremely likely for your subconscious opinions/biases to be affected. It affects the starting point of discourse in our mind.
The same argument can be applied to "The Da Vinci Code" and the "Left Behind" series, both of whose authors deliberately blurred the line between reality and fiction in the books and when they expressed their views in interviews and such.
Published: January 29, 2007 1:46 PM
Eric
Brooks, your argument is entirely academic, since the government no longer cares a twit about the constitution. Maybe that is why the show 24 is so popular. Like Dirty Harry, who cares about the law, if you work for the law?
Consider that the words of the constitution are never important, and the president and all the others who swore to uphold it don't care either. Bush said what, it's only a scrap of paper? Where's the declaration of war? Since FDR, we don't do that anymore I guess. So, who cares about the document?
If one were really to adhere to the words of the constitution, wouldn't 99.99% of all federal legislation in the last 100 years be unconstitutional. Just consider the 9th and 10th amendments, instead of also ignoring them. It's a dead document. What people here are arguing is what it SHOULD be about, not what the law actually says in the constitution. The government has made that irrelevant.
Published: January 29, 2007 1:59 PM
David Spellman
Given how quickly our nation is moving towards totalitarianism, I am beginning to regret having come out in favor of freedom. I was thinking "Not in my lifetime," but it appears I am horribly mistaken.
I expect to be in the first of second wave of disidents rounded up in the purges. Hopefully I will meet a quick end at the hands of government agents. I really hate being tortured to death.
Published: January 29, 2007 2:02 PM
Brooks Imprial
Eric,
You won't be talking about a "dead Constitution" the next time you get arrested. I do volunteer work with local law enforcement and a state agency and I assure you, these state actors think a great deal about what the law permits them to do, and prohibits them from doing.
Patrick,
Whatever led you to believe that fiction should represent reality? Isn't literary fiction a departure from reality, by definition?
Published: January 29, 2007 2:09 PM
Kevin B.
David,
I suggest learning to imitate the proles. I used that method for seven years when I served in the military. They never expected a damn thing from me.
Published: January 29, 2007 2:23 PM
Kevin B.
Brooks, meet Serpico. Serpico, this is Brooks. He says that he does volunteer work and assures us that the state actors think a great deal about what the law permits them to do and prevents them from doing. What do you think?
Published: January 29, 2007 2:29 PM
Brooks Imperial
http://www.praxeology.net/praxeo.htm
"Praxeology is the study of those aspects of human action that can be grasped a priori; in other words, it is concerned with the conceptual analysis and logical implications of preference, choice, means-end schemes, and so forth."
"The basic principles of praxeology were first discovered by the Greek philosophers, who used them as a foundation for a eudaimonistic ethics. This approach was further developed by the Scholastics, who extended praxeological analysis to the foundations of economics and social science as well."
"In the late nineteenth century, the praxeological approach to economics and social science was rediscovered by Carl Menger, founder of the Austrian School. The term praxeology was first applied to this approach by the later Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises (portrait at left). Along with his students (including Friedrich Hayek and Murray Rothbard), Mises employed praxeological principles to show that much existing economic and social theory was conceptually incoherent."
Just trying to remain true to ol' Ludwig Von.
Good day folks.
Published: January 29, 2007 2:42 PM
Dan
I'm a huge fan of the show, and yet, I do not find that offends my libertarian sensibilities. I am constantly reminded that it only due to our government's meddling that we even have a need for Jack Bauer. I think it depicts government in its true light - evil and bumbling. Half the time, Jack is not even an employee.
Published: January 29, 2007 2:43 PM
darthlaurel
Television attempts to entertain, to communicate, to include, sometimes to instruct, to be an agent of change. And more. Directors and actors have been open about their desire to have a specific impact on society. I think it makes sense to examine what extremely popular shows are saying, and how they are saying it, and to attempt to answer *why* they might feel like they should be communicating this idea.
To just say, "It's a TV show....lighten up..." is about as helpful as saying, about the modern education system, "hey, they are only little kids....don't worry about the propoganda."
Is 24 propoganda? If so, of what sort...and why does it matter for us to understand this.
That is what McCaffrey is trying to sort out. Nice job.
Published: January 29, 2007 2:53 PM
darthlaurel
Television attempts to entertain, to communicate, to include, sometimes to instruct, to be an agent of change. And more. Directors and actors have been open about their desire to have a specific impact on society. I think it makes sense to examine what extremely popular shows are saying, and how they are saying it, and to attempt to answer *why* they might feel like they should be communicating this idea.
To just say, "It's a TV show....lighten up..." is about as helpful as saying, about the modern education system, "hey, they are only little kids....don't worry about the propoganda."
Is 24 propoganda? If so, of what sort...and why does it matter for us to understand this.
That is what McCaffrey is trying to sort out. Nice job.
Published: January 29, 2007 2:53 PM
Jack Maturin
Although on the surface 24 may appear to be pro-state, just take a look at the under-currents which continually run through the show, like fungal filaments through a rotting wood pile.
President Logan was perhaps the most corrupt man who ever lived, ruled over by a shadowy big business elite; the state is prepared to slaughter its own employees to gain the slightest perceived (usually mistaken) advantage; the state has brought nuclear warfare to Los Angeles because of its middle-eastern policies; secure-facility state guards are corrupt murderers; the Whitehouse is filled with amoral sleaze-bags who would (literally) kill their own mothers to advance their careers; the FBI trample on even the flimsiest sets of rights not yet destroyed by Congress, and vindictively arrest people to punish them for dissent; the bosses sent over from 'Division' to deal with CTU, whenever it gets too effective, are always hopeless careerist morons; TAC teams are liable to blow away anybody who happens to get in their way; state pardons are handed out like confetti to the most evil of criminals, to gain short-term advantage; the whole of the US, nay, the world, is reliant on the whims of one man who chooses the slimiest of self-servers as his closest advisers; this one man, this Caesar, this God, will inflict His Law upon everyone, except of course his own sister or anyone else he owes personal favours to. Oh, I could go on.
But then there are the bigger questions 24 raises. Why are they over here, trying to kill us anyway? Which idiots invented this terrible WMD technology, in the first place? If it's really got this bad, surely there must be an alternative way of living which would make the world a safer place - whatever we have now, it ain't working?
I suppose it all depends on your point of view, but anyone with half a brain may be as disturbed by characters like President Logan as they will be enthralled by all the car chases. And if they haven't got a brain in the first place, we already lost them years ago to the public education process, so they're no big loss.
Let's just hope that in the next series, Jack goes to Alaska to try to get back to a quiet life, is persecuted for daring to leave, turns against the US government (at last, come on Jack), and then helps the Alaskans secede from the union.
Obviously, to bring down production costs they would have to move the location to somewhere nearer LAX airport, but that would be one helluva show! :-)
Published: January 29, 2007 3:41 PM
Reactionary
"I wonder where I can write Miss Manners on the proper methods of interogating a terrorist who is about to unleash a ton of VX on NYC within 24 hours? Aren't we so morally superior by observing civilized guidelines that our enemies will not obey, especially if we can do so over the graves of a million or so fellow citizens?"
You've been watching too much 24.
Published: January 29, 2007 3:47 PM
Jack Maturin
BTW Matt, forgot to say. Brilliant article. Keep 'em coming! ;-)
Published: January 29, 2007 3:55 PM
Matt Robare
Lenin: "Liberty is prescious, so prescious it must be rationed out."
That's the kind of mentality government has. They will deprive anyone of their liberty and property to protect it?
Huh? Destroying the village to save it is a bad idea.
Published: January 29, 2007 4:41 PM
Matt Robare
Lenin: "Liberty is prescious, so prescious it must be rationed out."
That's the kind of mentality government has. They will deprive anyone of their liberty and property to protect it?
Huh? Destroying the village to save it is a bad idea.
Published: January 29, 2007 4:41 PM
Matt
The real issue for the anti-govt people is 1)you think there is no threat, and 2)believe there is no such thing as a moral state actor.
Published: January 29, 2007 5:39 PM
WyldKard
As a discussion of propaganda, the OP makes a point, but it dismisses the reality behind government and instead bases it on a fictional world that is far from accurate.
"...the show is attempting to justify and even celebrate an ever-expanding Orwellian state."
An Orwellian state /in the show/, but not /in reality/. Like most Hollywood representations of the government, 24 exaggerates, or outright makes up how things actually work.
Published: January 29, 2007 5:54 PM
Eric
Brook, hopefully I can keep clear of the cops. I've been arrested twice and neither time was the arrest "legal". Both violated my rights. But this was 30 years ago, and back then, while the cops ignored all the rules, the judges didn't, provided you had a good mouthpiece - or your name is George Bush Jr.
One arrest for possession of pot which they found in my house when I wasn't even there; but I had 2 friends over. They cut them loose because they had no search warrent and forced their way in. But they came to my job and dragged me away anyway. The other time was also for pot possession. Again an illegal search, of my vehicle.
My in-law is a LAPD traffic cop who is pretty much an alchoholic; just the other day, he had 3 huge beers and I asked him how long till he could drive legal. He said, oh, 4 hours. But he drove off 30 minutes after that. And I consider him a rather good cop in comparison to others. Maybe he's just nice to me, I don't know. So much for the law. Oh, he also tells us how he rides his patrol motorcycle 80 mph home each nite. He's been stopped many times, but they let him go. Brooks, you sound kinda young, esp. if you are a volunteer. I too once belived in the system. Then there was Viet Nam and the war on drugs.
Federal drug laws have no constitutional basis, especially if I grow or make the drugs myself. But tell the DEA and the supreme court about that. Even the supreme court violated the constitution when they gave themselves powers not in the constitution (Marbury vs. Madison). It was all downhill from there.
Published: January 29, 2007 6:47 PM
Scott D
"The real issue for the anti-govt people is 1)you think there is no threat, and 2)believe there is no such thing as a moral state actor."
Wrong on both counts. The facts are:
1) The threat would not exist if U.S. foreign policy had not provoked it.
2) Ignorance can cause nearly as much damage as malign intent. Also, it's easier to give people what they ask for to try to explain why it would be bad for them (i.e. minimum wage legislation, anti-trust, protectionism, etc.).
Published: January 29, 2007 7:00 PM
Vince Penzo
I don’t agree with Matt's assessment of ‘24’. Bear the following in mind:
1) Jack always agonizes over each decision. This is the key to a good story. Put the protagonist between the horns of the most agonizing decision he has to face. This shows how important the writers feel the whole issue between civil rights vs terrorism is.
2) Jack is in hot pursuit of terrorists who plan to blow up one of our cities now. This is the ‘ethics of emergencies’. In an emergency you don’t worry about the niceties of legal theory. You shoot the guys who plan to kill you and your family.
3) Jack pays for it every time he breaks the law. He is a man near the breaking point, physically and spiritually because of the brutal psychological weight of having to decide between the law and say, saving his wife and daughter from certain death.
4) Last year, Jack helped bring the totalitarian type president you are concerned with to justice.
5) The bureaucratic politicos back in the office are usually against Jack breaking the law, because they know it could cost them their job.
As for almost rooting for the bad guys, I think this is over-reacting. The bad guys are trying kill Americans and destroy whole cities. The good guys are trying to stop them. Yes, it is a fine line they tread, but they are keenly aware of it, debate it, and agonize over it. You have to judge the story in the context the writers present it. The government agents are in the hot pursuit of an imminent attack. In such a case the government’s duty is to do everything they can do to stop it. The people who use the situation to try to usurp power, such as President Logan last year, always end up getting caught. That’s a good thing, isn’t it?
To say ‘24’ is being used to soften us up for a government take over evades the context of the show to make a political point. If anything, by making such a big deal of the issue between rights vs government power, they are heightening society’s awareness of the civil rights issue. I believe they are much closer to the liberal side of the debate than the conservative one, especially the way they portray the detention camps in this year’s series. I am totally sympathetic to the libertarian idea of individual rights and free market capitalism, but I think Matt's assessment of the show misses the true intentions of the writers exploration of the major issue of our time.
Published: January 29, 2007 7:02 PM
groveco
I was extremely addicted to the show for the first 2 1/2 seasons. But after a while something started to bother me. It was partly the absurd number of kills Jack accumulated in 24 hours. But there was something else. Mr. McCaffery's analysis nails it. I imagine much of the viewing public is indeed influenced by 24's message. I do not have a strong faith in the American television viewer's ability to separate t.v. from reality.
Published: January 29, 2007 7:25 PM
Axel Riemer
Vince,
However, it's the same problem with all art - no one sees the same thing. I think the perspective lens through which we view 24 (and all else) is not the view of the average bear. An average citizen (I would be ecstatic to be wrong) sees the unusual situation, and of course we all agree on which is the lesser of two evils - a small property/rights violation, or the immolation of an entire city. The problem is, the idea that it is all right to ignore property rights in time of emergency then opens the door, so to speak, to any "official" definition of what situation was an emergency. Imagine this situation: tomorrow in the news you read of an anthrax manufacturing ring in Florida that was busted and the malefactors apprehended. Tell me true now, was there anthrax? Were there malefactors? How can we tell what is an emergency violation, and what is a cover story? It reminds me too keenly of the movie Brazil. The problem with '24' is that the opposing side is never shown. As Matt states, innocents and bystanders are incidental in the story - the wrongs done them are swiftly forgotten, and it will appear to people who are less sensitive to seeing government abuse that this is the correct way to deal with emergencies.
I recently had the opportunity to read the memoirs of the mother of a Russian girl at school with me. They start with this quote by Lenin;
"Governing is ... power without limit, resting directly upon force, restrained by no laws, absolutely unrestrained by rules."
The world of '24' is not so far away from reality. Anyone who lived through Communist Russia can testify.
Published: January 29, 2007 7:28 PM
Peter
The Framers didn't give us a broad enforceable 4th Am. right in the Constitution
You're certainly correct, in that no rights are granted by the constitution!
Published: January 29, 2007 8:22 PM
Peter
Let's just hope that in the next series, Jack goes to Alaska to try to get back to a quiet life, is persecuted for daring to leave, turns against the US government (at last, come on Jack), and then helps the Alaskans secede from the union.
That would make a great series...except that he should go to New Hampshire, instead, and help out Ed Brown, then help NH secede!
Published: January 29, 2007 8:29 PM
Brooks Imperial
Eric,
I agree with you on Marbury. One need only go forward from that point to the Dred Scott decision a few decades later, where the Court had an opportunity to set the country on course to avoid the Civil War, and it instead chose to side with southern Democrats and, effectively, force the country into war, to find the problem with Marbury.
As for the panoply of federal regulatory agencies 20th century progressives gave to the country, I make no excuses. The Supreme Court's commerce clause justifications for federal regulation are not sufficiently persuasive, in my view, to overcome the fundamental nature of the Constitution as a system of governmental limitations, not permissions.
The remedy for these ills lies with us. We CAN elect representatives who will use the constitutional powers reserved to Congress to appropriately limit the subject matter that can be decided by federal courts - including the Supreme Court. We CAN promote constitutional amendments to unwind the damage done to the country through centuries of 14th Amendment Supreme Court decisions. We CAN expose the fallacies in substantive due process that create special interest rights-du-jour out of thin air.
We have a complicated mess on our hands, however, the problems are comprehensible and there are orderly remedies available to us. The left is always running off demonstrating about their issues. What an ineffectual waste. Imagine what they could accomplish if they actualy used the constitutional tools and authority we have at our disposal.
Published: January 29, 2007 8:31 PM
Mark B.
Marbury vs. Madison was the most debauched, torturous twisting of law in the modern world. It had to be, since Mr. Marbury was clearly entitled to his commission and the Supreme Court was clearly bound to issue a mandamus to order Madison to deliver the commission. The entire legal history of the Supreme Court stands on one decision which was so clearly and openly wrongly decided.
Published: January 29, 2007 9:47 PM
gene berman
Brooks:
It is true that Mises described the praxeological approach as one traceable to the ancient Greeks and that he attributed its rediscovery and (methodological) application to Menger. But the word itself and description of that application he laid (in a footnote) at the door of someone with a name like "Lispas" writing in the late 19th.
The debate you're having on this site is not one involving praxeology, per se, but morality. And, in that particular debate, you and I are on the same side, as would--very clearly--be Mises, were he alive and participating. Our opponents are what I'd describe (and others, including, perhaps, themselves, have described) as
"left-libertarians." The schism is moral and political, with the site itself being somewhat skewed (from its founding, and, indeed, its founders themselves) toward just that end of the spectrum.
Mises believed (and I with him) that Praxeology and Economics (which he described as the best-developed branch of the former) are, truly, "science," in the most rigidly-applied, universal definition of the term. That is to say, that it provides both rationale and means for valid prediction within the sphere of its application, to wit, human action.
The principal difference between "us" and "them" is that we (conservatively) generally wish to move or change current practice carefully--within bounds proven beneficial through understanding of our science; opponents (along a spectrum of belief) insist on moves which (our side would insist) cannot be so proven (though they may share--with our view--a common direction). In such understanding, our opponents are not only "radicals," but seem (to us) to transcend bounds imposed by reason. There are classic arguments for their side as well as for ours and there can be hardly any doubt but that some of their prescriptions, enacted into practice, would prove us unduly apprehensive. Many (indeed, most!) of the reforms we'd suggest would strike those unacquainted with Austrian-school economics, in like wise, as radical.
My chief criticism of the left-libertarians or anarchically-inclined is that they obfuscate (and I do not accuse them of deliberateness in this regard) emphasis on beneficial changes which might be more ably pro-polemicized were it not for emotional reaction engendered (in the media or the electorate, for example) by their positions on rather unrelated matters. Further, the site itself and its general tenor of extremism "scare off" many visitors who might otherwise become acquainted with Mises' thought.
In this latter wise, though, I must state my opinion (subject only to the reservations stated) that the site must be seen as an enormously positive influence; no other organization (including FEE, Heritage, Cato, etc.) has managed to achieve anything remotely resembling the popular success of the LRC/Mises sites. (Just can't knock the "throw enough shit against the wall" process when, previously, virtually nothing whatsoever "stuck").
Published: January 30, 2007 8:44 AM
David White
"[N]o other organization (including FEE, Heritage, Cato, etc.) has managed to achieve anything remotely resembling the popular success of the LRC/Mises sites."
Ah, but surely it is the sites' "general tenor of extremism" -- i.e., their radicalism, as in "arising from or going to the root" -- that distinguishes them from the others. For the more you water your message down in an attempt to make it palatable to larger numbers of people, the less meaningful your message is and the less of a following you therefore attract.
Published: January 30, 2007 9:02 AM
gene berman
Brooks:
The divide between conservatism and radicalism is fuzzy. Indeed, though my opinion on most matters tends toward the conservative (Do no harm!), I'd fall on the radical side on others. A case in point is education. I'm with Ms. Taylor (article below) on this one: the system is broke beyond repair and needs a new one--preferentially without gov't. involvement. For that reason, I believe the efforts of people like Horowitz (for academic freedom) and Harvey Kors' FIRE are essentially counterproductive--will actually serve to further entrench the collectivists, as long as they "shape up" and eschew some of their more putrid excrescences.
I have even more radical thought (shared by no one else--ever--to the best of my knowledge) on monetary matters. In my view, everything (!) said on the topic--by everyone, including Mises--is fundamentally flawed. In that area, everything (so far) imaginable has been tried and found wanting in one respect or another, have all eventually failed, and will always continue to do so; no use whatever in expending either ink or breath on the problems until something actually different comes along.
Published: January 30, 2007 9:10 AM
David White
gene berman,
OK, I'll bite. What's your radical thought?
Published: January 30, 2007 10:25 AM
Brooks Imperial
Yes Gene, I think it's odd that so many lefties seem at home on this Mises site. A lot of the listserv articles coming out of here also reflect that bent. Structurally you could say that the Austrian school is every bit as dogmatic as Marxism, and many on the left would probably see an equivelence there and miss the substantive differences. I personally don't know how one confuses a command economy that obviates moral choice and a voluntary economy that rewards moral behavior but also keeps it from controlling the market.
I enjoy Horowitz' site, even moreso since he incorporated Spencer's Jihad Watch into it. And FIRE pretty much stands alone in doing what the ACLU should be doing on campus to preserve the First Am. These voices, with a few others, are all that stand against the tide of monolithic leftist control of academia. Just as jihadis will not cease hating the West if we withdraw from the fight, collectivists will not temper their totalitarian principles in the absence of counter arguments. These are fights we cannot avoid. That the tension between ordered liberty and dictatorship persists without resolution after thousands of years should be clear enough evidence of the futility of pacifism.
Published: January 30, 2007 2:03 PM
Matt McCaffrey
I think that it is important for me to respond to some of the criticisms that have been raised in regards to the article. Firstly, I think that many people have probably misunderstood what I was trying to achieve with it. I attempted to analyze just how television can be used as propaganda to distort the reality of a topic such as the 'war on terror,' by replacing paperwork-completing government employees with dramatic and interesting protagonists, who, despite the fact that they 'agonize' over their decisions, always seem (for some reason) to come down on the side of violating personal liberties.
Also the analogy to the war speech in 1984 was appropriate because both cases involve the state changing both the definitions of 'enemy' and the enemies themselves. The claim that the analogy was deliberately misleading is absoltely beneath whoever made it.
As for the oh-so-witty gentleman who made the remark about Star Trek- it is an absolute fact that art, even low art, especially film, can and is used for purposes of propaganda. I did not mean to imply that 24 represents some sort of vast conspiracy theory, merely that it reflects a distortion of the reality of the 'war on terror' a distorion that serves the purposes of the state. Examining how this show is refereced by pundits and politicians alike only drives home the point that, either deliberately or accidentally, this show is being confused with reality.
I hope I have cleared up some of these points.
Published: January 30, 2007 3:37 PM
AnarchistScum
Hmmm. Reading this debate it has been an interesting bounce between several subjects. I want to actually make a point of contention with Brooks Imperial. Now In response to the discussion of the State destroying civil liberties for the common good, let me just say that the State no matter how its formed doesnt have any authority. At all.None. I actually wrote an article a while back on my blog(accesible through my name) on State jurisdiction in regards to tax protester Ed Brown.
From what I can sense, Brooks Imperial, your a "conservative". I highlight quotation marks because the idealogy you succumb to is the different idealogy that was embraced by men such as Albert Jay Nock, James Flynt, or William Graham Sumner. Basically, what men like Horowitz embraces is not the same conservatism that men of the turn of the century embrace. In fact present day Neo-conservatism is branched off of Straussian and Trotkyist ideas, hardly considered conservative. Given that the world is a different place then in ancient days doesn't imply a different set of principles. Brooks, if private people were to ever use the same tactics the government uses in property violation towards you then you would be on the fritz and be very upset. It's easy to exclaim that searches and property violations are necessary from your own abode without being on the receiving end.
Given that you work with law enforcement I can get a grasp of why you hold the State in such esteem. How anybody can be pro-state is beside me. Without reitering everything. I would recommend you going to www.lysanderspooner.org and reading No Treason. Lysander was a lawyer and he saw that the constitution or the government had no real authority.
Published: January 30, 2007 3:43 PM
gene berman
Don't get me wrong, Brooks. I think the aims (and
actions) of FIRE and Horowitz' campaign in favor of academic freedom are necessary and admirable. But that's not the same as believing that they hold hope for a re-creation of the system along lines both fundamentally (educationally) sound and generally amenable to what we'd conceive as a practical academic freedom.
The relative excellence of education (and literacy) in this nation--formerly--were the result of relatively happy and unique accidental circumstances , combined with the relative intellectual immaturity and disorganization of the various systems of collectivist thought. That world is gone; it is simply a datum of our (and world) history that Marx did, indeed, provide a neatly-fitted systemization and justification for social thought and prejudice that had long been dominant in much popular opinion, continues nearly undiminished to this very day, despite glaring failures, formerly unimaginable slaughter, and the dramatic implosion of its chief national expositor. (Though it cannot be maintained that the dominance of socialism owes merely to its prior systematized appearance: there is some essential attractiveness in its precepts that transcend bounds of social or economic position, race, nation, level of intellectual ability or attainment, etc.) But it is, indeed, a fact that its conquest of mens' minds had at least a half-century "head start" on its only consistent challenge (and, of course, I refer specifically to the "Austrian School" of economic thought.) It is impossible to return to those better days (in education) of 50 and more years ago; as long as education is viewed primarily as a legitimate function and responsibility of government, the collectivist forces will command the heights, no matter that their most egregious offenses be curtailed--and that whether by frank and active opposition or their own caretaking efforts to preserve dominance. And, though I deplore the state of much common education of today, I am in virtual complete agreement with the expressed opinion of Mises (in one of the lengthy essays, I believe, collected under the title "Planning for Freedom") that it were better for the young to be raised as illiterates than as the raw material shaped by any of the collectivist factions intent on shaping the rising generation according to their particular lights.
If I seem a slavish devotee of Mises, so be it. I have been thinking about these matters (as well as observing unfolding events) for much of the time during the last half of my 70 years and have found not the tiniest detail in which I could, honestly, offer the slightest contra opinion. You could say I came, I saw, I concurred. (That's original with me, though at much earlier time.)
The single detail in which I differ from Mises is in my thought on monetary matters: I simply find it almost inconceivable that he did not see the glaring inconsistency in his (and everyone else's) plans or recommendations for "reform." And that is simply that all experience has shown that, regardless of any limitation placed on "those in power," all will be disregarded and broken as political exigiencies demand. That constitutions, no matter how nobly inspired, are "mere scraps of paper" in the face of determined men, is a truth at least as self-evident as any other (and it did not escape Mises' attention, which is why I cannot comprehend his failure to apply that very same understanding to proposals for monetary reform). Essentially, he seemed to propose that the best system of the past be reinstituted and simply hope for the best--that, in the future (very, very, long, indeed) people would somehow avoid making the bad choices that had marred past experience.
Note to David White: I wasn't fishing. I'm not prepared to discuss my ideas at present and cannot even guarantee I ever will be so prepared, though I certainly hope so. I've got the e-mail addresses of about a dozen people--most of them readers here--to which I'll communicate something when I can practically do so. You're welcome to send yours to me to add: gene.berman@verizon.net The one thing I can guarantee is that you'll have never heard anything remotely resembling. And, just to whet your appetite a bit, I'll throw in that, at the same time, I'll demonstrate conclusively that Archimedes cannot have developed the concept which we know as "specific gravity" but must have lived in a society in which the principle was already well-understood and, further, that the phenomenon we know as "Gresham's Law," (which today is placed a couple hundred years before Gresham) need have been fairly widely understood much earlier--by a couple thousand years.
Published: January 30, 2007 4:06 PM
Peter
Gene Berman/Brooks Imperial: where do you see leftists on this site? Well, OK, first question I suppose is: what do you mean by "leftist"? If you're using the original definition, akin to "radical", that's one thing; if you mean the modern definition, there are no leftists here. The closest thing to a "left libertarian" here (he even calls himself that) is Roderick Long...
[Is anyone else thinking of The Life of Brian right now? "Welease woderick!"]
Published: January 30, 2007 4:53 PM
Brooks Imperial
Mr. A. Scum,
I believe I've accurately covered some principles of our constitutional authority on the 4th Am., which, in so far as it also applies to persons, concerns much more than "property." But that is an aside.
You may not recognize constitutional authority and the whole system of subordinate authorities it governs in America, including state and federal governments, the heirarchies of state and federal courts, law enforcement agencies, etc., however, these interlocking systems of legal authority don't require your personal recognition for their continued existence. At the end of each day (almost) they will produce new judicial opinions, new statutes, and new regulations, that will impose some new conditions of life in America.
You should recognize these sources of authority because they will certainly recognize you when you cross them, and ignorance of their laws will rairly be an acceptable excuse to them.
It's not that I am an apologist for the state. I just choose to understand it and know what it can do because the last person I want to have to respond or react to some imposed legal authority is me. Moreover, I don't see how one can succeed in America today without a thorough understanding of the legal and regulatory environment that governs so many aspects of our daily lives.
The authorities are established and the rules are published. Mostly, they are fair rules. The ones that aren't fair I avoid or I set about changing if it's worth it to me.
Published: January 30, 2007 5:00 PM
Kevin B.
AnarchistScum,
"Given that you work with law enforcement I can get a grasp of why you hold the State in such esteem."
I'll tell you how it is from seven years military experience. Whenever we had volunteers, guests, etc. with us, we put on a front. We fake being nice and say that we do things in a manner which in no way reflects reality when nobody is looking. I am being serious, and I am not lying. If anyone complains about the way we do things, then it is our butt that gets sent to the brig, so when visitors come we try to avoid the naughty list. As long as they're around, we stop wasting ammunition, stop wasting supplies, take down the "turn iraq to glass" posters, clean everything up and put on our "we're proud to serve you" faces.
I wish I had brought a video camera to all the brainwashing "musters" we had. We are good. They are bad. We are good. They are bad. Over and over again. I wouldn't doubt if every day we were told what was good and what was evil a number of times over. I remember one of the last meetings I had to attend. We were all bunched into a movie theater on base. There were somewhere from 500 to 1,000 of us. While we sat and listened to the "preachers," we were watched to ensure that we were awake and listening. For over five hours (with bathroom breaks), we were reminded that drugs are bad, alchohol is bad, smoking is bad (those three you hear 1 mil times in a 4 year enlistment). This time we learned of some new evils, such as predatory lenders. I wanted to throw up. Predatory lenders, among other things, are now bad and they would burn them all down if their superiors gave the order.
My experiences weren't nearly as unbelievable as others. I have friends who were told to dump supplies into the ocean so they could maintain funding. Do we do that in front of you when you come to visit? Your tax dollars at work.
Published: January 30, 2007 5:08 PM
Brooks Imperial
Kevin B.,
You make a good case for more citizen oversight of public agencies.
On funding, every government in America uses prior-year based budgeting. From the fed to states, counties and localities, if there’s money left at the end of the year in the till, they spend it to keep the base up for next years budget. Efficiency is not rewarded. Spending is rewarded.
Look at Medicare. CMS keeps their budget up by keeping Medicare fee schedules rising. Drugs get cheaper, devices get made for a fraction of the cost in China, and hospital stays get shorter, yet reimbursements keep going up. Manufacturers and health care providers have incentives to increase their bottom lines, but there is no systemic reward for lowering the cost of health care. Build a better mousetrap at a fraction of the cost, and charge more for it. All governments do it.
Public agencies (governments) in America should be constitutionally limited – by amendment - to zero-based quantity-justified budgeting.
Published: January 30, 2007 5:39 PM
gene berman
Brooks:
I strongly recommend you read Mises' BUREAUCRACY.
It's short (about 125 pocket-book-sized pages) and much easier to understand quickly than almost anything else the man ever wrote. When you're done, you'll know (and, what is more--you'll know that you know) virtually everything of any importance about the subject.
A bureaucracy is bound to act in just the fashion that they do--including spending the entirety of their budget by hook or crook: any leftover is prima facie evidence of either or both of two transgressions: non-feasance or incompetent performance. A surplus is proof that more of the assigned mission could have been accomplished within the funds allocated; incompetence (poor planning) is the only possible (and only partial) exculpation.
An executive branch is (of necessity) primarily bureaucratic; the only alternative is petty (and not-so petty) despotism. The only possible way to reduce the inefficiencies and general aggravations of bureaucracy is neither to fix the bureaucratic methods nor the bureaucrats--but to reduce the areas and the extent to which government is involved in various aspects of life.
Published: January 30, 2007 6:07 PM
AnarchistScum
Brooks Imperial,
"You may not recognize constitutional authority and the whole system of subordinate authorities it governs in America, including state and federal governments, the heirarchies of state and federal courts, law enforcement agencies, etc., however, these interlocking systems of legal authority don't require your personal recognition for their continued existence. At the end of each day (almost) they will produce new judicial opinions, new statutes, and new regulations, that will impose some new conditions of life in America."
Well of course they don't need my personal recognition for their continued existence. Nor does the mafia, or a street gang, or even a cult. They exist as they are but doesnt mean I have to follow their rules or their dictates. There was no basis for legitmacy. Having the most force of arms or verbal manipulation doesnt establish legitimacy. Now in a hypothetical situation where there is no more Federal government and the Nation-state is a conglomerate of small countries; I go into a city-state of a 100,000 people and it is ruled by am oligarchy. I rent a room from an owner that has always been part of the city state. Now I would follow the rules because A)The city state is its own organization of property owners ruled by the wealthy and B)I am on private property and regardless I can follow the dictates of the owner or simply leave. Now they could'nt hold me there unless I violated property rights, in which case I would have to pay restitution. Given that the Nation-state we live in is so fragmented, there is no reason to put everyone under the same banner of the constitution. Not everyone recognizes that authority. Naturally, if the Federal State was washed away by whatever means then people will fragment, secede, align, join, to their own voluntary preferences to whatever country, county, city, property, they want to be part of. Everyone is different and putting everyone under the same banner doesn't do anyone justice.
"You should recognize these sources of authority because they will certainly recognize you when you cross them, and ignorance of their laws will rairly be an acceptable excuse to them."
Same thing with the Mafia, if I cross them or what not they will come for me. It does not make it legimate though. Stalin understood his enemies that contended against him and he dealt with them swiftly.Hitler did. Mao did. They all did. But it doesnt mean they are in the right.
"It's not that I am an apologist for the state. I just choose to understand it and know what it can do because the last person I want to have to respond or react to some imposed legal authority is me. Moreover, I don't see how one can succeed in America today without a thorough understanding of the legal and regulatory environment that governs so many aspects of our daily lives."
I understand you look to your survival as a priority. So do I. So do all animals. Of course I dont want to deal with the State on its terms, they have the firepower, theyre ruthless, and they have no souls. People succeed all the time without having to deal with State. Albeit the State is in every facet of life so understanding the rules of the State is another means to survival. There is times though when you cannot be bullied anymore. Realization of false authority is a means to an end. If everyone were to rise up against the State right now their would be no State anymore.
"The authorities are established and the rules are published. Mostly, they are fair rules. The ones that aren't fair I avoid or I set about changing if it's worth it to me."
Now thats a fair opinion but not everyone feels that opinion is worth while. So their is contention in that facet. Like the Iraqis being ruled by the US puppet State. Im sure many of them feel the rules being imposed by them by foreigners is unjust.
Published: January 30, 2007 6:26 PM
Brooks Imperial
Mr. A. Scum,
Not all utopian constructs are created equal. Some are more plausible than others, but ones forced on societies have had disastrous results for the unlucky citizens caught in them.
In the American Revolution colonials fought to preserve the societies they had already created in the new world. Then the need for federalism grew out of the weaknesses inherent in the loose confederation that followed the revolution. Colonials responded with a well reasoned, well argued, governmental construct that still preserved much of what they already had. These were measured steps in a direction. They weren’t cataclysmic like the French Revolution, or your libertarian proposals to do away with all existing government and impose a darwinian oligarchy of city-states.
It is unlikely in the extreme that we’ll ever see the rate of change in America that you promote. Americans simply don’t change their minds that radically that fast. Far more likely will be slow demographic-driven changes of the sort that Mark Steyn writes about. But unless a Muslim majority should form in America, I doubt we’ll see much change in our fundamental governmental structures.
Published: January 30, 2007 7:45 PM
AnarchistScum
"Not all utopian constructs are created equal. Some are more plausible than others, but ones forced on societies have had disastrous results for the unlucky citizens caught in them."
By all means that is a fact. There is no enforcement on civilization if the present State imploded from whatever means. What the present State does is apply force to everyone and puts everyone, regardless of differences, under the same banner. That to me is a Utopian construct.
"In the American Revolution colonials fought to preserve the societies they had already created in the new world. Then the need for federalism grew out of the weaknesses inherent in the loose confederation that followed the revolution. Colonials responded with a well reasoned, well argued, governmental construct that still preserved much of what they already had. These were measured steps in a direction. They weren’t cataclysmic like the French Revolution, or your libertarian proposals to do away with all existing government and impose a darwinian oligarchy of city-states."
There was nothing well reasoned in the governmental structure that the Founding Fathers FORCED onto the populace. Like every government, its akin to a parasite, the more it feeds off the host the more it grows. I see this "well reasoned" structure as a dismal failure. Federalism lead to the creation of ever increasing beaucracy and State hood. Now the Federal government is supreme over the States and so forth down the line. Im sure there was weaknesses inherent in the Articles of Confederation but those failures are minute compared to the failures this government structure has created. You contend that my libertarian proposals are cataclysmic. I do not necessarily know how the State will be destroyed. My hope is that people will be eductated and will rise on their own accord. If it was sudden and the Federal government was defeated by some revolutionary faction, then perhaps it will catch people off guard. I'm not an oracle so I cannot forsee the future. What I can tell you is that people and ever growing markets satisfy consumer demands or needs. Im not proposing there to be oligarchic city-states, all I am proposing is people VOLUNTARYILY align themselves with whoever they want. If they want totaltariansim then they'll go to a place where that idealogy is respected. The list can go on and on. The French Revolution was disastrous because it was an imposition from up top and the worst came into power. There was a government structure still intact that created a disaster and gave power to men like Robespierre.
"It is unlikely in the extreme that we’ll ever see the rate of change in America that you promote. Americans simply don’t change their minds that radically that fast. Far more likely will be slow demographic-driven changes of the sort that Mark Steyn writes about. But unless a Muslim majority should form in America, I doubt we’ll see much change in our fundamental governmental structures."
Honestly who knows. Since you contend to know how Americans change their minds; liberty will hopefully win in the end, whether its slowly or suddenly. We will see.
Published: January 30, 2007 10:46 PM
Vanmind
I wonder if Kiefer himself worships the state. His grandfather Tommy Douglas sure was a pioneering socialist in Canada. The old sob scored quite well in a recent (state-owned) CBC poll about "The Greatest Canadian."
Mind you, so did some almost-unknown DJ who "got out the vote" in Winterpeg.
Published: January 30, 2007 11:57 PM
Paul
A movie that I quite liked as a kid was Dirty Harry, which is pure propaganda for the police state. It is extremely effective propaganda, in fact. It uses the "ticking bomb" excuse (in this case a suffocating adolescent girl) to justify police torture.
More importantly, the omniscient camera shows us that Harry Callahan is 100% correct and his enemy is pure evil. If only the higher ups would stop being politicians and let him do his job. In the real world of course, we'd have no way of knowing this. In fact, if their were such an omniscient camera, the police would be the first ones to want it banned.
There are occaisionally shows that show up this point of view, for example on The Sopranos the mobsters are certainly evil and corrupt, but so is the State they control and their enemies (aside from each other) the Feds are inept careerists who don't really care about the people they use to get to the mob. The two snitches are an interesting comparison, one older, savvy mobster is constantly getting money and favors out of the Feds for his cooperation because he understands how much they need him (until he dies, peacefully of a stroke). Pretty but not to bright Adrianna La Cerva is basically revealed to the Mob through their constant, escalating demands and inept plans and killed because of it.
Published: February 1, 2007 3:54 PM
Paul
A movie that I quite liked as a kid was Dirty Harry, which is pure propaganda for the police state. It is extremely effective propaganda, in fact. It uses the "ticking bomb" excuse (in this case a suffocating adolescent girl) to justify police torture.
More importantly, the omniscient camera shows us that Harry Callahan is 100% correct and his enemy is pure evil. If only the higher ups would stop being politicians and let him do his job. In the real world of course, we'd have no way of knowing this. In fact, if their were such an omniscient camera, the police would be the first ones to want it banned.
There are occaisionally shows that show up this point of view, for example on The Sopranos the mobsters are certainly evil and corrupt, but so is the State they control and their enemies (aside from each other) the Feds are inept careerists who don't really care about the people they use to get to the mob. The two snitches are an interesting comparison, one older, savvy mobster is constantly getting money and favors out of the Feds for his cooperation because he understands how much they need him (until he dies, peacefully of a stroke). Pretty but not to bright Adrianna La Cerva is basically revealed to the Mob through their constant, escalating demands and inept plans and killed because of it.
Published: February 1, 2007 3:54 PM
Victor Chavez
I don't understand some of you so called "true conservatives". Stop overanalyzing so much! Just enjoy the show!!! According to many of you, I am a neo-con. But I'm just as conservative as anyone on here. Tell me, how are we supposed to fight these evil people if we don't go to war with them? You all think if we stay out of their lives in the middle east they will leave us alone. Well, why did they take 52 American hostages in 1979 in Iran? Did we have any troops in Iran back then or anywhere else in that region? Also, tell me how many American citizens have lost there civil rights because of the PATRIOT Act? Answer: NONE! There is no other way to fight this evil called radical Islam! 24 has it right. A few people may have to get there toes stepped on in order to fight these inhumane people who want to drop a nuclear bomb on us. Wake up!! Or tell the nation your plan for fighting terrorism because I haven't heard a credible alternative to the war.
A big reason for why we are in the Middle East is because we have not been allowed to drill for oil here by the radical environmentalists. I admit that oil is a big reason why we are at war over there. What if we were to drill here along some of the coastlines where it's estimated that we have approximately 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas according to the U.S. Minerals Management Service. We consume about 23 trillion cubic feet of natural gas per year and import about 4.5 billion. What in God's name is the reason for not drilling for oil in our own backyard??? Can any of you conservatives answer that?? Because of this we have given the radical leaders in the middle east billions of dollars a year in order to fund their war machine which is being used against us right now.
Published: February 1, 2007 8:16 PM
Sam
Actually Paul I thought Dirty Harry was a DYI sort of guy. He'd complain that the system was too soft and criminals would be back on the streets in no time to terrorise innocent folks all over again. Yet then there's one movie where he finds certain police officers are vigilantes because they hate the system for the same reason. However Dirty Harry defends the system against the vigilantes cops (and eventually kills them)with the reply to the tune of: 'I hate the system too but I'm not going get rid of it until someone comes up with a better one. If we let people do their own enforcement soon you'll have a neighbour killing another neighbour for his dog crapping on the other's lawn'. Is this a case of someone with a ideology akin to walking along a barbed wire fence with a leg on either side?
Published: February 1, 2007 10:59 PM
ortgeard
I think Matt did a fine job with the article. I too would like to see Jack Bauer agonize over a decision then CHOOSE NOT to violate some American's rights. At least once. Then we might know he is "morally and spiritually at the end of his rope".
Has anyone seen Children of Men? I saw it yesterday and it really affected me. The State was portrayed in a faceless, anonymous way as a force of evil, while the "terrorists/revolutionaries" and "illegals" seemed to be more personal but still evil.
Incredibly sad but accurate movie.
Published: February 5, 2007 10:05 AM
Chris-Robbie
Victor Chavez,
You raised the question as to why the Iranian terrorist kidnapped and help American hostages in 1979. Ever hear of CIA Operation Ajax? Read your history book about Mohammad Mossadeq and how the CIA orchestrated a coup in 1953 to overthrow this pro-US, anti-communist leader on behalf of British M16. I suggest the book "All the Shah's Men" for more information regarding this topic. Wonder where the roots of Iranian terror come from? How about the US installing a secular dictator in Iran (at the time being a democratic state!)
Published: February 6, 2007 3:45 PM
Alan
I’ve never watched the show, but I see the writer has built a straw man argument…
For or against us doesn’t mean everyone in a country, it refers to the leaders. Everyone knows that there are many people of Iran are sympathetic to the west, or would outright overthrow their leaders if they could.
Published: April 2, 2007 6:43 PM
Juan
Brooks says
"Kevin B.,
You make a good case for more citizen oversight of public agencies."
I love government's 'logic'. It goes something like this :
We spend 100,000 millions in 'national defense' and still the WTC is blown up. What went wrong ? Well, of course, the stinky taxpayers didn't surrend enough money....it's their fault.
So, the government doesn't work as designed ? Well, now the citizens must not only pay the overpriced bills but also do the work of the bureaucrats and/or oversee them.
Also, just what is a 'public agency' ?
You've already denied that the state is merely a group of persons. I suppose then the state is a collective entity that represent the 'will of the people' (that's of course rubbish, but is, more or less, the definition I think you'd use)
So, I assume that a public agency represents the will of the people. If that's the case, why is it that public agencies take care of their own interests, as if they were simply a 'private' organizations ?
If an entity acts like entities beloging to category xxxx then that entity is an xxxx.
If an entity acts like the Maffia it's because it's an instance of the Maffia. If you see a pig and call it a cow, it's still a pig.
Published: April 3, 2007 1:54 PM