I always cautioned my college students: “The Constitution does not enforce itself. Its success or survival depends on the moral qualities of those entrusted with its enforcement.”
Assuming both sides hold to their views / principles, only violence can resolve the issue. This is why wars are fought.
The idea of the Right - that reason can change the ideology of the left - is existentially naive. The actions of the left - violence is a useful tool to subjugate ideological opponents, ie ultimately the most intolerant will succeed, is of course, accurate. No major issue between ideologies ever has been settled without war.
Which leaves the overriding question: will the right recognize its duty to society, culture, civilization and our heirs and crush the left… before the left crushes us, liberty and civilization? This cannot happen judicially; it only can occur through violence. Only one side understands and is acting on this. If this doesn’t change, freedom, liberty and the rule of law will be crushed by the left as the right watches, unwilling to act.
“A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen: but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means.”
- Thomas Jefferson, 1810 / Letter to John B. Colvin
"You know of which I speak - judges, lawyers and the administrative state are experts at this – and when presidents decide which laws to enforce and how vigorously they intend to enforce them, in my opinion, is a violation of their oath of office."
This makes a broad assumption that no judges, lawyers nor administrative state actors are committed to the group working to exploit the trust agreement.
I agree 100% with the point that any agreement isn't worth the paper it is written on without a common/shared moral code. The US Constitution... an agreement that primarily protects the libertarian view of the rights of the individual to pursue happiness and self-interest... when the words were written... were done so by deep-thinking people that made assumptions that a common/shared moral code would prevail. And I believe it largely did prevail up until the time that the leader of the free world at the time, Bill Clinton, told his baldfaced lie to the world denying that he had sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinski. That was a crucible action that shifted the "moral" perspective as being "as long as I can get away with it, even if I have to lie about it, it must be okay."
What we have today is a sea of people that behave in this way... that any method to get ahead, to win, to advance, to see their own ideas prevail... can be done at the expense of others and still be considered moral. In fact, it seems that people add the expense of others as part of their pursuit and still sleep well at night. This includes judges, lawyers and government officials.
Thanks, Michael, for the refreshing primer on the philosophers I read long ago and who contributed to the value system I have worked to uphold the rest of my life. I venture a guess that few of today's elected, in either party, would be prepared to talk to the principles you so ably described. There is scant evidence since WW2, until the DJT team, of any understanding of a contract
Super article to lay out the under pinning of our government's success relying on virtue of the people -- can we here list out the actual instances of where and how it was done? Let's get specific.
Looking forward to Sharia Law: public beheadings, stoning women to death, gay guys launched from tall buildings. Covering this stuff should invigorate legacy media.
I'd only add that Rawls' "veil of ignorance" is utter nonsense. I wrote a whole piece about that, since it's one of the underpinnings of Leftism. Rawls does not belong in the same essay with the other philosophical giants you cited.
I always cautioned my college students: “The Constitution does not enforce itself. Its success or survival depends on the moral qualities of those entrusted with its enforcement.”
Every word a hit to center mass.
Assuming both sides hold to their views / principles, only violence can resolve the issue. This is why wars are fought.
The idea of the Right - that reason can change the ideology of the left - is existentially naive. The actions of the left - violence is a useful tool to subjugate ideological opponents, ie ultimately the most intolerant will succeed, is of course, accurate. No major issue between ideologies ever has been settled without war.
Which leaves the overriding question: will the right recognize its duty to society, culture, civilization and our heirs and crush the left… before the left crushes us, liberty and civilization? This cannot happen judicially; it only can occur through violence. Only one side understands and is acting on this. If this doesn’t change, freedom, liberty and the rule of law will be crushed by the left as the right watches, unwilling to act.
“A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen: but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means.”
- Thomas Jefferson, 1810 / Letter to John B. Colvin
Well done, however:
"You know of which I speak - judges, lawyers and the administrative state are experts at this – and when presidents decide which laws to enforce and how vigorously they intend to enforce them, in my opinion, is a violation of their oath of office."
This makes a broad assumption that no judges, lawyers nor administrative state actors are committed to the group working to exploit the trust agreement.
I agree 100% with the point that any agreement isn't worth the paper it is written on without a common/shared moral code. The US Constitution... an agreement that primarily protects the libertarian view of the rights of the individual to pursue happiness and self-interest... when the words were written... were done so by deep-thinking people that made assumptions that a common/shared moral code would prevail. And I believe it largely did prevail up until the time that the leader of the free world at the time, Bill Clinton, told his baldfaced lie to the world denying that he had sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinski. That was a crucible action that shifted the "moral" perspective as being "as long as I can get away with it, even if I have to lie about it, it must be okay."
What we have today is a sea of people that behave in this way... that any method to get ahead, to win, to advance, to see their own ideas prevail... can be done at the expense of others and still be considered moral. In fact, it seems that people add the expense of others as part of their pursuit and still sleep well at night. This includes judges, lawyers and government officials.
Thanks, Michael, for the refreshing primer on the philosophers I read long ago and who contributed to the value system I have worked to uphold the rest of my life. I venture a guess that few of today's elected, in either party, would be prepared to talk to the principles you so ably described. There is scant evidence since WW2, until the DJT team, of any understanding of a contract
Words have meaning.
Very well written.
Nice piece.
Super article to lay out the under pinning of our government's success relying on virtue of the people -- can we here list out the actual instances of where and how it was done? Let's get specific.
Looking forward to Sharia Law: public beheadings, stoning women to death, gay guys launched from tall buildings. Covering this stuff should invigorate legacy media.
“Peoples Republic”, a novel by Kurt Schlicter, is a good read.
I'd only add that Rawls' "veil of ignorance" is utter nonsense. I wrote a whole piece about that, since it's one of the underpinnings of Leftism. Rawls does not belong in the same essay with the other philosophical giants you cited.