Joe Sobran’s view of Lincoln is more charitable than that of (say) Neil Smith or Thomas DiLorenzo, not that that’s saying much, but he still calls the war a tragic blunder.
Given the timing of that column (October 7), I wonder whether Sobran had the same thought as I, that the recent polarization of our politics should make talk of secession more palatable to the mainstream.
. . . Popper said that it is reasonable to assume that sooner or later some rotten scoundrels will gain power. It’s not important who they will be precisely, but whatever your politcal views might be you must agree that a likelihood of such event is rather high. So whatever law you want to have in you country, don’t ask yourself the question “how this law can be used in good hands”. Ask the question “how this law can be used when the filthiest, dirtest, stupidest bastards will rule my country (and sooner or later they probably will)”. Only the law that cannot be used to anything wrong EVEN by the most vicious ruler is truly good. . . .
(Cited by Aaron Krowne.)
Over the years I have occasionally quoted the principle as “write your constitution as if your worst enemy were in power,” but without knowing where I picked it up. Popper, eh?
Atheism and Unalienable Rights by Robert E. Meyer (also cited today on RRND):
Skeptics want to deny that rights come from God, but if they are correct, then there is no sound philosophical footings undergirding their perpetual claim to any rights. They are walking on a tenuous tightrope of conceptual fiat. Obviously they have not thought this issue through very carefully. . . .
In other words, atheists who speak of rights are guilty of what Ayn Rand (an atheist) called “the fallacy of the stolen concept”. Obviously Meyer has not taken the time to find a libertarian atheist (how hard can it be?) and ask a few questions. It would be amusing – for a few minutes – to hear him and an Objectivist debate the roots of rights. ( . . more . . )
In 1994, I was (so they tell me who follow such things) the first Libertarian in California to be endorsed for partisan office by a major daily newspaper. Now I have a chance at a second footnote in the history books!
There’s a new group (or maybe one guy) proposing an Amendment to recognize the right of secession:
The sovereign authority of any State to withdraw by law from the United States shall not be questioned, and the United States shall recognize it as a sovereign and independent country.
I’m chortling because the first clause was my suggestion (except that I wrote the People of any State), in response to this earlier draft:
If any state should, either through a referendum or a majority vote of that state’s legislature, choose to secede from the United States of America, Congress shall let it secede in peace, and recognize it as a sovereign and independent State.
My objection to this was that it overrode any provision that a State constitution might have for supermajority or popular ratification. Many of us, I imagine, would want some major reforms before allowing the gang of thieves in the State capitol to declare itself sovereign by simple majority!
Looking up the Constitution of the State of California for a discussion on secession, I noticed this doubly odd provision (article 3 section 2):
The boundaries of the State are those stated in the Constitution of 1849 as modified pursuant to statute. Sacramento is the capital of California.
Why incorporate a superseded law by reference rather than explicitly? And why put in the constitution something that is subject to alteration by ordinary statute?
Alan K. Henderson sells shirts and a bumpersticker with the slogan
McCain/Feingold ’04
SILENCE THE VOTE!