Karl Keating on the Decline of the National Review and Other Matters

Karl Keating's E-Letter via e-mail ^ | July 5, 2005 | Karl Keating

[dsc]

"That's the hair-brained, godless ramblings of J.J. Rousseau."

The expression is "hare-brained," not "hair brained."

And yes, Rousseau was hare-brained.

The notion of members of a society having responsibilities to that society, however, is not.

[Gerard.P]

we might ask what right the state has to demand that kids go to school.

We should be asking that question. It's the corrupt public school system that is brainwashing children en masse to subscribe to looney ideas of "community" and "conflict resolution" and "environmental love" etc. All junk. Parents are the custodians of their children and their education should be determined soley by them.

All invalid analogies.

How so? In each case the government is forcing someone to do something disregarding the free will of the victim. Tossing them a few dirty coins doesn't make something right.

[TradicalRC]

The state does not have rights. That includes the right to indoctrinate children in government schools and forcing Christians to pay taxes for blatantly anti-Christian institutions.

[dsc]

"The state does not have rights."

That is correct. The state rightfully has only the powers that we give it constitutionally.

If we want to give it the power to require community service, we can do that.

[TradicalRC]

If we say it does, it does. We are the state.

And if the state becomes a communist oligarchy and demands our allegiance or a lifetime of "community service"? L'etat C'est moi?

[dsc]

"How so?"

Because each of the things you propose requiring people to do is malum in se.

Military or community service is not.

There is a difference in pushing a little old lady into the path of a speeding bus, and pushing a little old lady out of the path of a speeding bus.

[TradicalRC]

One human right God gives us, per the Declaration of Independence, is the right to establish government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to us shall seem most likely to effect our Safety and Happiness.

As well as the right to alter or abolish government. That is if you regard the D of I as definitive. It's nice, but it's not Scripture.

[dsc]

"And if the state becomes a communist oligarchy"

How odd it is that several people have decided to attribute extreme positions to me, that go far beyond anything I have proposed.

Shouldn't it be obvious that arguments predicated on the Declaration of Indpendence presume that government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed?

[dsc]

"It's nice, but it's not Scripture."

Neither is the Constitution. What's your point?

[annalex]

There is a difference in pushing a little old lady into the path of a speeding bus, and pushing a little old lady out of the path of a speeding bus

In his #15 Romulus made the same disctinction in application tot he draft: "not in cases of emergency, but in the normal course of business".

Draft is morally permissible to defend the homeland. That is your lady on the path of a bus. Routine national service under any other pretext is temporary enslavement of the conscripts and is malum in se. Perhaps you forgot what the original argument was?

[GipperGal]

Hi, we're from the government, and we're here to help you.

LOL! Classic Gipper punch line. That's what he called the most frightening words in the English language.

[x]

That's clever -- maybe too clever. The US did require up to four years paid service from people in the years 1941 to 1945. Was that slavery? It gave them up to four years paid food, shelter, and medical care. Was that welfare or socialized medicine?

I'm not saying that mandatory community service is a good thing, just that not all forms of required service can fairly be called slavery. If the country is in trouble, and that service is necessary to prevent real slavery it's justified.

[Romulus]

How odd it is that several people have decided to attribute extreme positions to me, that go far beyond anything I have proposed.

Oh, I beg your pardon. You've argued that government compel its citizens only for good purposes. Silly me.

You really seem not to get the fact that to justify a dubious principle with the proviso that it not be abused is ipso facto utilitarian.

Shouldn't it be obvious that arguments predicated on the Declaration of Indpendence presume that government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed?

No. These days the governed consent to a great many depraved things. You will not find a majority in this country prepared to vote for human life protections in line with those demanded by the Catholic Church. You have got to face the fact that some political theories implicit in the Declaration -- specifically, the notion that all power derives from the popular will -- are radically inconsistent with a Christian view.

[Romulus]

Classic Gipper punch line.

Considering what the Gipper did to jolly along conservative while massively expanding government and giving nothing but lip service to conservative social concerns, I'd call it a Classic Gipper sucker punch line.

[Gerard.P]

No man is an island. entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main.

From the Declaration.....We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, LIBERTY and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

If you believe in God, then you know that rights are only half of an equation, with responsibilities on the other side.

And those nations will answer to God when they usurp the rights he has bestowed for social agendas at variance with his rule. God has endowed man with free will. To usurp that free will from someone who has not forfeited it with an injustice is to declare war on God.

From the Declaration..... But when a long train of abuses and USURPATIONS, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Section 311. Militia: composition and classes.....

What is the current composition of the U.S. militia? You seriously want to force the "militia" to be redefined into some sort of barracks oriented "commune"?

The Constitution says the government shall provide for the common defense and merely promote the general welfare.

[x]

In a way National Review has come full circle. In the 1950s and 1960s they were a quirky small circulation periodical. Most Americans probably didn't share the concerns of the clique who put out the magazine. In the 1970s and 1980s National Review reflected the way very many American voters thought. The country came around in the Eighties to some of the positions the magazine had represented earlier. Earlier liberal hopes came to be seen as mistaken and misplaced. The magazine modified its stands to reflect the current situation, and became a major voice in the Reagan years.

Lately, though, the magazine seems to be more a product of a small clique with its own particular interests and preoccupations. The circulation is larger than it was in the Fifties or Sixties, but it doesn't seem as essential as it did in the Seventies or Eighties. The difference is that the deeper cultural concerns of the early magazine aren't there. NR wants to be a "player" on the political and policy scenes and doesn't bother as much with the philosophical framework.

With the end of the Cold War it was back to the drawing board for NR. They've had a hard time getting things to gel. They downplayed some of their earlier cultural conservatism and their post-Cold War positions didn't have as wide an appeal. 9/11 gave the magazine a new focus and won plenty of new readers concerned with homeland security, but they haven't quite convinced me that they're on the right track about a lot of things.

[dsc]

"not in cases of emergency, but in the normal course of business"...Draft is morally permissible to defend the homeland."

Defense of the homeland is not something that can be put away in a closet until we are attacked. For instance, highways and bridges figure in to national defense.

It is foolhardy to wait for emergency before thinking of defense.

"Routine national service under any other pretext is temporary enslavement of the conscripts and is malum in se."

Nonsense. It is not only moral but Constitutional to require a certain amount of service from members of society. To propose otherwise leads inexorably to the position that every requirement laid on us is slavery, from military service in time of war to taxation and child support.

You propose "defense of the homeland" as your requirement for conscription, but that's as arbitrary as any other position. Someone could easily say, okay, our country is in a state of emergency due to the failure of parents and our social institutions to turn young people into civilized human beings. Draft'em, send them to boot camp, and civilize them. They get their discharge when they pass the GED.

There is no question here that we want the country to have the power to require some things of us under some circumstances; we're just quibbling over how much and when.

[Gerard.P]

You automatically assume that enforced community service will be for "the common good".

Wars can be just or unjust, which is why we have conscientious objectors.

And "community service" is actually one of the most destructive government programs ever devised. The community is not established and maintained by the government. The community establishes and maintains the government.

Giving clean needles out, distributing condoms, midnight basketball, and whatever other whimsy some elite group of corrupt powerbrokers have decided for your children to do may be fine for you but I would not allow my children to be corrupted by their filth.

If the French Army could supply mobile brothels for their soldiers, why is it such a far cry for U.S. women (and men)to be eventually conscripted for the "morale of the people" to bend over and 'take it like a man'? I mean, they will be paid of course. We could even start encouraging people to breed the right types of people suited for that thing. Ah...Eugenics, where have you been?

After that, we'll be euthanizing people. Oh wait, we're already doing that.

[Gerard.P]

He's probably going to go after Gerry Matatics. He's been hounding the man trying to destroy him after Gerry stopped working for him years ago. They had a disagreement over finances. (basically one didn't want to pay the other what he'd agreed to)

Gerry has since become a traditionalist Catholic and that spells trouble for the other guy.

[dsc]

"Silly me."

Yes, silly you. Not only for "good purposes," but to a limited extent, with the consent of the governed, and within Constitutional constraints.

It is silly indeed to have a problem with that.

"You really seem not to get the fact that to justify a dubious principle with the proviso that it not be abused is ipso facto utilitarian."

Been a long time since philosophy 101, eh? Utilitarianism is the political philosophy that justifies measures by their utility. There is no necessary connection whatsoever with their "dubiousness" or any requirement that they not be abused.

"No."

Or rather, to any sensible and fair-minded person, "Yes."

"specifically, the notion that all power derives from the popular will -- are radically inconsistent with a Christian view."

It was specifically stated by the Founding Fathers that the popular will would necessarily be informed by Christian principles, else the system would not work.

The Declaration implicitly holds that the power that derives from the popular will has its source in God. Rights derive from God, and people can exercise power in line with those rights. It's not a license to do anything our sinful natures can conceive.