Another great essay from Bill Whittle, The Undefended City:

On February 9^th, 1933, the ruling elite of the world’s great Civilization held a debate in the Oxford Union. With thunderclouds growing dark across the English Channel, at a time when resolute action could still have averted the worst catastrophe the world has ever known, these elites resolved that “This House will in no circumstances fight for its King and Country.”

The Resolution passed by a vote of 275 to 153. Needless to say, this vote did not avert the fight. It guaranteed it.

…young men and women are taught that America is “a terrorist nation,” “one of the worst regimes in history,” that it’s twice-elected leader is “the son of the devil,” and dictator of this “fascist” country. Further, “patriotism” is taught by dragging an American flag across the classroom floor, because the nation’s truest patriots, as we should know by now, are those who are most able to despise it.

This is only high school, remember: in college things get much, much worse.

Two generations, now, are being raised on this poison, and the reason for that is this: the enemies of this city cannot come out and simply say, “Do not defend the city.” Even the smartest among us can see that is simple treason. But they can say, “The City is not worth defending.” So they say that, and they say that all the time and in as many different ways as they are able.

Read the whole thing.

From ABC 33/40:

In the wake of last weekend’s deadly car accident in Brookside in which a 15-year-old was thrown from the bed of a pickup truck and killed, one Alabama lawmaker says he plans to introduce a bill in the legislature to ban the practice altogether.

Ahhh, the neverending struggle between lawmakers who want to curb everyone’s rights because of a tiny minority who do stupid things.

I have fond memories of riding in the back of my dad’s truck as a young kid - to include sitting on a lowered tailgate, feet dangling just above the road.  Of course that was on the slow roads at our favorite state parks.  It would be a shame to see busybody lawmakers ban the practice because a few people are dumb enough to ride in the bed of a truck going 70+ miles per hour on the interstate.

Note: The impetus for this post is the FISA bill currently being debated in Congress, but also reflects more broadly on conservative philosophy within the modern Republican party.

I’ve found the recent bickering over whether to give retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies who cooperated with the Bush administration’s warrantless surveillance program to be almost surreal.  It defies reason to hear self professed conservatives actually arguing - and vehemently so - not only for the executive branch to have additional unchecked powers, but also for companies who knowingly complied with government orders to compromise their customer’s privacy to be immune from consequences.  Such logic flies in the face of traditional, limited government conservatism.  I certainly wouldn’t expect to hear the same Republicans arguing for Clinton or Obama to have this expanded power, which leaves only the conclusion that they’re sacrificing their conservative principles - assuming they ever held them dear - in order to placate a Republican president who has constantly eschewed numerous tenets of conservatism.

In this specific case, the nation’s telecoms, with the sole exception of Quest, fell into some kind of patriotic stupor and agreed to hand over information that their clients would most certainly expect to be kept confidential.  These companies most certainly have scores of highly paid lawyers who should have known this was a bad, if not flat-out illegal, idea and would have been obliged to say as much.  It’s not like Quest accidentally did the right thing.  As much as I dislike trial lawyers - and believe me, I do - the telecoms that complied with the Bush administration deserve to be open to potential litigation due to their choice.

To the broader point, I heard a great interview recently with former Rep. Mickey Edwards who was flogging his new tome, Reclaiming Conservatism.  Here’s the description that the publisher provides:

Edwards argues loud and clear that conservatives today have abandoned their principles and have become champions of that which they once most feared. The conservative movement–which once nominated Barry Goldwater for President, and later elected Ronald Reagan–was based on a distinctly American kind of conservatism which drew its inspiration directly from the United States Constitution–in particular, an overriding belief in individual liberty and limited government. But today, Edwards argues, the mantle of conservatism has been taken over by people whose beliefs and policies threaten the entire constitutional system of government. By abetting an imperial presidency, he contends, so-called “conservatives” have gutted the system of checks and balances, abandoned due process, and trampled upon our cherished civil liberties. Today’s conservatives endorse unprecedented assertions of government power–from the creation of secret prisons to illegal wiretapping. Once, they fought to protect citizens from government intrusion; today, they seem to recognize few limits on what government can do. The movement that was once the Constitution’s–and freedom’s–strongest defender is now at risk of becoming its most dangerous enemy.

Sounds like a worthwhile read. 

For some reason things like civil liberties have become anathema to many so-called conservatives for no justifiable reason.  Liberty, whether civil, economic, personal, etc., is the foundation of conservative, small government philosophy.  I’m guessing that the perception of civil liberties has been colored by their tight embrace by big government liberals.  These individuals, typically Democrats, have no problem with the government intruding into nearly every facet of people’s lives until it comes to civil liberty issues.  Then they get all lathered up.  This frequently smacks of them fighting solely to protect hedonistic, immoral, or outright criminal endeavors.  Consequently in our increasingly politically polarized society conservatives, who typically align with Republicans, all too often choose to mock these hippie socialists and unfortunately the very conservative notion of civil liberty is collateral damage.  That is a shame.

Current Republicans have, in their zeal to solidify the power of the party, conferred increased power to this president and have dutifully supported proposals that should make them blush with shame.  It is not coincidental that their attempts to increase power by means of sacrificing principles have backfired and left the party in distress.

PBS did a great interview with Ron Paul recently on NewsHour in which Paul responded to a question about side effects of greater freedom by saying, “freedom doesn’t give you perfection.”  It’s a great point that merits reflection.

Often in discussions of rolling back government intrusion into the lives of private citizens it is easy to get bogged down trying to prove that more freedom will not only be as good as the current situation (usually in terms of some loaded metric), but will be better.  Once that argument has been broached, all involved lose sight of the importance of liberty.

Would our country be better off if there were no wage laws?  I believe so and I think I could make a compelling argument.  But that doesn’t matter.  I should be able to work where I want, for whom I want, and for whatever wage I so desire.  Same goes for any individuals I might employ.  Why shouldn’t two individuals be allowed to engage in a mutually agreeable financial transaction?  Anything short of that is an abrogation of their liberty.

Medical care.  Could a trustworthy, competent government take better care of a willing subjects than a truly private market?  Opinions vary.  Is it worth ceding control of your body (and the tax dollars the program will cost) to the government just to find out?  No.

Whatever the topic, it can be both fun and enlightening to debate the mechanics and results of varying degrees of governmental interference.  But don’t forget that every inch yielded to the government is a diminution of your freedom.  Once you give it up it is nearly impossible to get it back and the “superior” government solution you were sold will likely be compromised through incompetence, deceit, or political meddling.  Freedom isn’t always the perfect solution, but it is always the most perfect.

Regular readers (both of you) probably know that I’m a huge fan of John Stossel.  He is one of the few media types who truly understands what liberty and freedom - both personal and economic - really are.  Here is a short clip of him discussing why America is prosperous at a FairTax rally in Columbia, SC on May 15.

Note: The Stossel speech was actually at the FairTax rally in Columbia, SC, not Ames, IA as I originally stated.