Coming to terms with the Patriot Act

"I am against hysterical approach to the Patriot Act; the idea that it is some fascist manifesto that must be eradicated from the face of the earth. Patriot Act salvageable. Surveillance possible with proper constitutional safe guards without violating individual rights. No FISA/Patriot Act, come next terrorist attack on our soil we will face dictatorship."

Any government surveilance, and the totality of the PA, infringe on individual rights. The question is: Does it do so reasonably, and does is truly and effectively provide a benefit sufficient to justify the infringement of individual rights. The PA was Congress' hysterical reaction to 9/11. Every lover of liberty should oppose it, and see it as a step in the wrong direction. It is only 'salvageable' perhaps as shredded bird cage liner. The idea that salvaging the PA will somehow PREVENT Congress from passing even more draconian measures is without support, and flies in the face of common sense. The death of indivdual freedoms usually creeps. With the PA, it crept forward, and with another terrorist attack domestically, it may, or may not, creep forward again, but I do not think giving the PA a pass is going to help the cause. Exposing it for what it is and working for it's repeal is the best course of conduct. Call this hysterical if you must. I tend to get a little excited when my 'free' country transforms into a police state, whilst Libertarians/Objectivists sit on their hands, afraid of some phantom 'worse legislation' which an intact PA will not guard against, anyway.

Post 21

Thursday, July 28, 2005 - 7:47am

Scott,

It is virtually impossible to conduct intercourse with you. You take arbitrary positions and then rely on your 'wits' to defend them. You are a professional Devil's Advocate who very much reminds me of Nathan Hawking.

Your latest Post talks about the Patriot Act as if it sprang full grown from the head of Zeus after 911. The Patriot Act is a prettier name for FISA, which has been with us for 25 years. The Patriot Act is FISA plus a bandaid.

So dream your flights of fancy with ignorant pretties like:

The PA was Congress' hysterical reaction to 9/11. Every lover of liberty should oppose it, and see it as a step in the wrong direction. It is only 'salvageable' perhaps as shredded bird cage liner.

But the truth is PA has been around for 25 years, and you are still the pragmatist who bestows favor on good as opposed to bad government takings.

Post 22

Thursday, July 28, 2005 - 1:28pm

RD says of me:

"It is virtually impossible to conduct intercourse with you. You take arbitrary positions and then rely on your 'wits' to defend them."

Aw come on, Robert, I 'aint that bad. I disagree that my positions are arbitrary. I find them to be rather consistent. In fact, I don't really understand what is arbitrary about my position that the PA was a 'hysterical' reaction to 9/11. Are you saying that the PA bear NO relationship to 9/11? Or that it would have been passed WITHOUT 9/11? I find that to be patently indefensible. Is it a coincidence that the Act is dated October 24, 2001 (uh, the month after 9/11) and its purpose is "To deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools..." would be a reaction to 9/11?

I appreciate your educating me about FISA, but you go too far in suggesting that the PA was not a reaction to 9/11, even if the PA IS 'Fisa with a band aid.' I'm not conceding that this is the case, as I still want to look into it in more detail.

As far as 'using my wits'--well what ELSE am I supposed to use? My elbow? I DO have a lovely elbow. It may be my best feature. But it is not very effective in an argument.

You're abrasive, but I like your style. I just wish you weren't so WRONG about stuff. It's just that you are so AGGRESSIVELY wrong that makes me want to conduct 'impossible' intercourse. The exchanges are entertaining and sometimes somewhat productive, so what the hey. It's clear you find me to be just as WRONG. We'll just have to live with one another and let the readers decide who the villan and hero are.

Post 23

Thursday, July 28, 2005 - 1:29pm

And, BTW, for like the eleventh time, ALL taxes are immoral.

Post 24

Thursday, July 28, 2005 - 2:21pm

All taxes are immoral. Thank you Scott.

Post 25

Thursday, July 28, 2005 - 2:41pm

Well Scott,

There is hope. I am getting through to you that the so-called Patriot Act has been around for 25 years as FISA. What happened after 911 was to give it the spiffy new name, and apply it to terrorists. (Mostly)

As far as 'using my wits'--well what ELSE am I supposed to use? My elbow? I DO have a lovely elbow. It may be my best feature. But it is not very effective in an argument.

I dislike those who argue any point, whether they believe it or not, just to display their rhetorical skills. I wish you no ill-will, never have, you frustrate me because I find you inconsistent.

All taxes are not immoral. It is only a tax that robs Peter to pay Paul (redistributes wealth) that is immoral, taxes that provide for the defense and the courts are fine.

Post 26

Thursday, July 28, 2005 - 2:57pm

If taxation is coerced, it is immoral.
(Edited by Joe Maurone
on 7/28, 7:20pm)

Post 27

Thursday, July 28, 2005 - 7:16pm

"It is only a tax that robs Peter to pay Paul (redistributes wealth) that is immoral, taxes that provide for the defense and the courts are fine."

I disagree. All compulsory taxation is immoral theft.

I also dispute that I am inconsistent. Any evidence or this more of an impression?

Post 28

Friday, July 29, 2005 - 7:26pm

Section 8 - Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises , to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

This is however off topic.

(Edited by Robert Davison on 7/29, 7:29pm)

Post 29

Friday, July 29, 2005 - 7:41pm

Scott,

Again I am not your enemy.

I also dispute that I am inconsistent. Any evidence or this more of an impression?

We have discussed those particular issues.

Liked your old photo better, this one is a bit belligerent.
.

Post 30

Saturday, July 30, 2005 - 6:07pm

Robert, my friend, YOU are being inconsistent here, unless you believe that the US Constitution is the source of all morality.

Post 31

Saturday, July 30, 2005 - 6:24pm

Reality is the final arbitor from which all morality derives, friend.

But as Ayn Rand memorably said at a party I attended in 1962, in response to complaints that "taxes are too high" (then 20%), "Pay 80% if you need it for defense." It is not the amount but the purpose served that decides what is "too much.

The only function of the government, in such a society, is the task of protecting man�s rights, i.e., the task of protecting him from physical force."
["What Is Capitalism?" Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 19.]

Post 32

Saturday, July 30, 2005 - 6:53pm

Scott,

You've made my day, hell, my whole month, by calling Adam Reed a dirty old man.

It would be appropriate for you not to let your sexual perversion cloud your reasoning on this issue.

There is no better candidate for this remark. :-)

Post 33

Saturday, July 30, 2005 - 7:18pm

Then Rand was mistaken, if she said 80% compulsory taxation was moral. Voluntary contributions, made by men and groups of men (businesses) is the only way a government ought to collect what it needs to operate. A rather elegant means of checking uncontrolled government expansion--make them (govt) ASK for it, dime by dime, rather than take it by the billions.

Post 34

Sunday, July 31, 2005 - 1:37am

Just as Rand believed in a voluntary military, she couldn't have meant that quote literally. If she was against conscription, she had to be against coerced taxation for military defense.

Post 35

Sunday, July 31, 2005 - 8:41am

Robert D.,

"You've made my day, hell, my whole month, by calling Adam Reed a dirty old man."

"There is no better candidate for this remark."

This puts you quite firmly in the "troll" category.

Post 36

Sunday, July 31, 2005 - 12:31pm

Mike,

I took it as a compliment. Among people who think that sex is dirty, that title is a pedestrian stand-in for un vieillard encore vert.

Post 37

Monday, August 1, 2005 - 1:51pm

There is hope. I am getting through to you that the so-called Patriot Act has been around for 25 years as FISA. What happened after 911 was to give it the spiffy new name, and apply it to terrorists. (Mostly)

Exactly, Robert, the terrorist clause is the problem in it. It is not only terrorists who are terrorists by evidence, but also terrorists who are suspected to be terrorists. The very definition of terrorism can be set so wide as to encompass any individuum who disagrees with a government. Therfore the Patriot Act is evil (as is any of those overloaded, jurisdiction-evading Acts that came into existence during the Cold War).

Your citing of the Section 8 is also very intersting, because it shows that The US may not only get taxes for Defence setup, but also taxes for everything (the General Welfare of the USA). All in all, the US seems to be founded on as much socialist quicksand as any European Country.

On the other side, if the US constituation is a treaty between the people of the US and some sort of Government, then the treaty should not be forced but voluntarily accepted. So, if you have to coerce taxes from your people, shouldn't the contract get invalid?

Post 38

Monday, August 1, 2005 - 7:27pm

Max:

Exactly, Robert, the terrorist clause is the problem in it. It is not only terrorists who are terrorists by evidence, but also terrorists who are suspected to be terrorists. The very definition of terrorism can be set so wide as to encompass any individuum who disagrees with a government. Therfore the Patriot Act is evil (as is any of those overloaded, jurisdiction-evading Acts that came into existence during the Cold War).

I think we can define terrorist/terrorism, without difficulty.

Your citing of the Section 8 is also very intersting, because it shows that The US may not only get taxes for Defence setup, but also taxes for everything (the General Welfare of the USA). All in all, the US seems to be founded on as much socialist quicksand as any European Country.

[O]ur tenet ever was, and, indeed, it is almost the only landmark which now divides the federalists from the republicans, that Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money.

Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin (June 16, 1817), in 10 WRITINGS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON at 90, 91 (Paul Leicester Ford ed., 1899) quoted in Roger Pilon, Freedom, Responsibility, and the Constitution: On Recovering Our Founding Principles, 68 Notre Dame L. Rev. 507, 530.

On the other side, if the US constituation is a treaty between the people of the US and some sort of Government, then the treaty should not be forced but voluntarily accepted.

The constitution limits government, not citizens. There is nothing wrong, however, with �renegotiating�. Like the proverbial rolling stone our constitution has picked up a lot of moss over the years.

So, if you have to coerce taxes from your people, shouldn't the contract get invalid?

Citizens may agree to taxes for certain purposes primarily defense, but taxes should be voluntary. Defense, courts, and police could be provided for by fees sold by government to guarantee contracts or by a lottery. The manner in which taxes are levied should be a concern. A tax on income, for example, is simply stupid, on so many levels.

Post 39

Tuesday, August 2, 2005 - 5:39am