Sweet land of tyranny

"Sweet Land of Tyranny" (James Hankins)

Unconcerned about constitutional rights

I recently saw a political conservative (as well as Reformed Christian) state the following on Twitter:

Given the current health crisis, no one is currently concerned about constitutional rights.

1. I don't understand how any full-blooded American could ever say something like this. The Constitution and Bill of Rights were forged in the wake of war. In the midst of a fledgling nation threatened to be torn apart from internal strife. Surrounded by opportunistic enemies (e.g. British, French, Spanish). Facing outbreak after outbreak of disease which afflicted Americans in general as well as American soldiers defending the nation. Perhaps the most fearsome of the diseases at the time was smallpox. Smallpox is scarier than coronavirus. It had a higher transmission rate (R0) and fatality rate (CFR). (Thankfully we eradicated smallpox a few decades ago.) Yet, despite all these real and present crises as well as crises waiting to happen, including public health crises, our Founding Fathers were keenly "concerned about constitutional rights".

2. In fairness, the statement could be saying "constitutional rights" aren't even on the table right now. Not that we should be unconcerned about constitutional rights. If so, that's likewise something I don't understand. Why shouldn't constitutional rights be on the table during a public health crisis? If not during a crisis, then when? Only during "normal" times? Perhaps he's alluding to something like Lincoln suspending habeas corpus during the Civil War. If so, it's arguable whether Lincoln should've done that.

The right to self-defense

Alyssa Milano asks:

Can someone cite which passage of the Bible God states it is a god-given right to own a gun? This guy is unbelievable and is clearly owned by the gun lobby. #NoRA https://t.co/PxVV1RoV2Z

— Alyssa Milano (@Alyssa_Milano) September 1, 2019

Ted Cruz answers:

An excellent Q, worth considering carefully w/o the snark of Twitter. It is of course not the right to a modern-day firearm that is God-give but rather the right to Life & the right to Liberty. Essential to that right to life is the right to DEFEND your life & your family. 1/x https://t.co/8pjstMGrGB

— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) September 1, 2019

3/x The Declaration of Independence acknowledges our rights thusly: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) September 2, 2019

5/x Stephen Willeford exercised that fundamental right when he risked his own life to stop the Sutherland Springs murderer, saving countless others as a result.

— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) September 2, 2019

7/x “...in most govts it has been the study of rulers to confine this right w/in the narrowest limits possible. Wherever...the right...to keep & bear arms is, under any...pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”

— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) September 2, 2019

9/x I’m a Texan. What happened in Midland-Odessa—and El Paso, Santa Fe & Sutherland Springs—was sick, deranged & horrifying. We need to do MUCH more to stop violent criminals & those w/ dangerous mental illness BEFORE they murder & I’m leading the fight in the Senate to do so.

— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) September 2, 2019

10/x Playing politics w/ these deranged crimes—and trying to use them as an excuse to violate the constl rights of law-abiding citizens—won’t make anybody safer. Forcible gun confiscation (as some 2020 Dems urge) won’t prevent mass-murders. But it would weaken our self-defense.

— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) September 2, 2019

We need the 2nd amendment

1. The photo is from a recent protest in Hong Kong.

1. Sadly, it's too late for Hongkongers to have a 2nd amendment.

   Too late for Hongkongers to use firearms to resist their own toady government, which was effectively handpicked by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

   Too late for Hongkongers to use firearms to resist their own lackey police force.

   Too late for Hongkongers to use firearms to resist the triads and other hired guns (not to mention communist spies across Hong Kong) who are in collusion with the CCP.

2. I'm not even necessarily suggesting Hongkongers should use firearms, though that's an option. Just possessing firearms may be a deterrence in and of itself. At least it'd make bullies think twice.

Thinkspot

Per the Joe Rogan podcast this week, I'm backing a new platform called thinkspot, currently in Beta. Get on the waitlist here, exciting announcements coming very soon. https://t.co/3xQ78Iqc0h

— Dr Jordan B Peterson (@jordanbpeterson) June 10, 2019

1. Amanda Prestigiacomo writes:

Thinkspot.com, the author revealed, will be a space where creators can monetize their work and users can engage in thoughtful debate without worrying about the ubiquitous Big Tech censorship plaguing conservative and right-of-center users on platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube.

Speaking to popular podcast host and comedian Joe Rogan last week, Peterson explained that Thinkspot’s terms of service will uphold free speech principles. “Once you’re on our platform, we won't take you down unless ordered to by a court of law,” he said.

The forthcoming platform, currently in beta testing, will be a subscription service where creators can monetize their work.

“We’re hoping we can really add dialogue to the podcast and YouTuber world,” explained Peterson. “We’re also gonna do the same things with books, so if you buy an e-book on the platform, you’ll be able to annotate publicly. ... We can do that with books that are in the public domain, too.”

“We’re hoping that we’ll be able to pull people who are interested in intelligent conversation, specifically, into this platform, maybe start pulling them away from YouTube and some of the less specialized channels — that, plus our anti-censorship stance,” he added.

2. I expect liberals and progressives to attack Thinkspot (if they haven't already) despite still being in beta. However, if so, then this might give Thinkspot more publicity. Just like how Jordan Peterson became a sensation.

3. I presume Thinkspot will seek to employ people who agree with their vision. Or at least who won't attempt to undermine their vision. That could create jobs for conservatives and the like-minded.

The Bill of Rights

It's my impression that nowadays, conservatives usually assume the original Bill of Rights applies to Americans in general. It applies at the level of state and local government, and to some degree, even in the private sector. But I've also seen it claimed that that's anachronistic. Rather, that's due to the "incorporation" doctrine whereby some provisions in the Bill of Rights were reapplied to the states via the due process clause. Hence, that doesn't reflect original intent. 

However, I think that's questionable. From what I've read, Enlightenment political theorists had a doctrine of natural rights. Indeed, we see an example of this in The Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

To some degree, natural rights were distinguished from political rights. Natural rights were universal whereas political rights were individual. In modern jargon, we might recast the distinction in terms of human rights and civil rights, where human rights are innate and universal while civil rights are conferred by gov't. 

However, the distinction isn't that cut-and-dried, from some political rights were viewed as derivative natural rights. The function of some political rights was to safeguard natural rights, viz. freedom from oppression.

This seems to be the basic relationship between The Declaration of Independence and the original Bill of Rights. Although a few provisions in the Bill of Rights might be merely individual rights, in the main they appear to be derivative natural rights. In other words, they are specific political provisions to safeguard natural rights. Insofar as that's the case, it's not anachronistic to view the Bill of Rights as an extension and application of natural rights to the political sphere. In that event, the Bill of Rights is not confined to the Federal gov't. In some cases, it's not even confined to the public sector. 

Free speech apocalypse

http://andynaselli.com/doug-wilsons-new-film-the-free-speech-apocalypse

Sedition

A distinctive feature of an autocratic or totalitarian regime is making it a crime for a private citizen to criticize official policy. Specifically, that's the crime of sedition.

To criticize a royal edict, to criticize the policies or Stalin or Chairman Mao, is seditious. It is unlawful to criticize the law. 

A distinctive feature of American Constitutional democracy is the freedom to criticize the state. Freedom to criticize the law. Freedom to criticize officials or official policies. 

Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are intentionally and diametrically opposed to the crime of sedition. Under our system of gov't, there can be no crime of sedition, in the sense of speech that's critical of ruling regime. 

Until recently, "sedition" had become a rather quaint term in American discourse. However, by criminalizing dissent as "hate speech," the homosexual lobby is making America revert to a political era when it was illegal to criticize the gov't. 

How many voters are aware of this development? How many voters appreciate the consequences of this trend? Do they think it should be against the law to criticize the law? 

Bill of Rights Presumes the Government is Guilty

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/348328/praise-paranoia