"One can only defend democracy by totalitarian methods"
RESTRICT ACT up next
By KATHLEEN MCCOOK APR 14, 2023
Airman Jack Teixeira has been arrested for leaking confidential intelligence and defense documents on a gaming chat server.1
The cacophony of news reports seems to be focused on Teixeira rather than the content of the items leaked. Immediately I read and heard that what was leaked may have been muddled and releaked and changed. This deflects the public’s attention.
Ironically George Orwell commented back when England was pro-Russian.2
One of the peculiar phenomena of our time is the renegade Liberal. Over and above the familiar Marxist claim that ‘bourgeois liberty’ is an illusion, there is now a widespread tendency to argue that one can only defend democracy by totalitarian methods. If one loves democracy, the argument runs, one must crush its enemies by no matter what means. And who are its enemies? It always appears that they are not only those who attack it openly and consciously, but those who ‘objectively’ endanger it by spreading mistaken doctrines. In other words, defending democracy involves destroying all independence of thought.
RESTRICT ACT Keep an eye on the RESTRICT Act wending its way through Congress. (RESTRICT is a lovely little acronym for Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats that Risk Information and Communications Technology Act of 2023). It’s not just all about Tik-Tok.3
1 Jack Teixeira: US airman appears in court over Pentagon documents leak. BBC News. 4/14/2023.
2 George Orwell, The Freedom of the Press (Orwell's Proposed Preface to ‘Animal Farm’)
3 Joseph Cox, (March 29, 2023). “The 'Insanely Broad' RESTRICT Act Could Ban Much More Than Just TikTok.” Motherboard.
https://kathleenmccook.substack.com/p/one-can-only-defend-democracy-by
As someone who rants, it's definitely tough to keep people interested in your post.
The Constitution is not a perfect document, and does little to actually ensure that people retain their rights.
It should have had stronger wording, and perhaps a duration of time before it could no longer be amended -- say, one hundred years from its creation.
It should have outlined (more) specific remedies when the government became tyrannical, which the founding fathers knew it eventually would.
The Constitution is not a perfect document. A Republican form of government is not perfect either, as we see.
It's simply as close as we've gotten.
I think a kingdom is probably the best notion, but that only works when it's a benevolent ruler who protects the freedoms of its people, and as we see, entire family lines can be corrupted.
Always nice to start a reply with an insult.
The DoI made implicit statements of Individual Sovereignty. The Constitution did the opposite. The only thing required to ensure that no fuckery could possibly happen is the following:
Together, these first two make any "statement of Rights" redundant. A "statement of Rights" can only be fuckery (as was the Bill of Rights), since it can't possibly include them all, thus our legal rights become limited to what is stated. Only a recognition of Sovereignty (Ultimate Authority) makes clear an incontrovertible recognition of all of the Rights of every Individual.
A Government AKA a formal system of law that "steers the ship" (the definition of "govern") must be recognized as a Treaty between Sovereigns that is agreed upon by all members of that Treaty. It is an explicit recognition that ultimately, only Natural Law matters, the rest exists only so long as the members agree it should, and only for those member that want it. If that is appreciated, then no fuckery is possible.
All the rest of everything you said doesn't seem to me to agree with that simple premise; rather it seems to try to justify the document we got (which was full of fuckery from the get go) and put lipstick on a pig. The government that existed after the first 100 years, or indeed, the first 100 days, was already a Tyranny. It was built into the Constitution, in direct odds with the flowery words of the DoI. You also seem to insist that we must be Ruled by an Authority.
How can an Individual, who is born the Ultimate Authority of their Life and Liberty possibly "need" a Ruler (King, President, Republic, whatever) to tell them what they can or can't do, to subvert that which was given to them at their creation?