This site is dedicated to everything that can be disagreed about. There are appropriate swear words and graphic descriptions so PLEASE, keep your children off this site. In fact, don't let your kids look at anything with a screen.

Wednesday, August 10, 2005

Hizb ut Tahrir, War, and the First Amendment

Upon hearing that British PM Tony Blair wants to ban the Hizb ut Tahrir (HT) over the objections of the Home Office (who doesn't consider them dangerous), I had to check them out.

There isn't any doubt in my mind that this is a dangerous group. Arresting and deporting members and supporters of HT should be the first order of business of law enforcement. Their website should have been removed years ago, Indeed, it should have never been allowed to exist.

A violation of the First Amendment? Yep. We know what Hizb ut Tahrir thinks about our "freedom of expression". It will be the first thing to go, as they use it to promote and establish their backward religion. Note: see post on Selling Rope to Hang Oneself

I think the Minute Men should keep a close eye on these people as they are sympathetic in "thought" though not name. We know that law enforcement won't do it.

These sites here and here are very enlightening.

I will post tomorrow on the football teams. -TP


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just looked at your links. I'm about ready to take up arms against these sub-humans myself. Christ! How tolerant are we going to continue to be?!?

8:46 PM

Blogger The Plumber said...

By my reckoning, less than 25% of the males in this country is made up of real men.

I may be optimistic. Half of the country is right-leaning, and half of those are males.

There are no real men who are left-leaning. Their testicles have been co-opted by left-leaning women.

8:53 PM

Blogger The Plumber said...

Sorry anonymous, I did not finish my thought.

In essence, we will need to be attacked again to piss off enough left-leaning women that they will force their eunichs to act.

8:58 PM

Blogger ctindel said...

Yeah maybe we should go around violating the bill of rights so we can have the kind of safe, happy life that Chinese people have... because they don't have suicide bombers on their buses.

12:22 AM

Blogger The Plumber said...


Now it's your turn to jest.

I assume you saw the Chinese bus bombing link. Rather gruesome, n'est pas? I don't think that it was a terrorist (Islamic) attack, but then we will never know, probably.

I'm not sure if the First Amendment protects sedition; Durbin's comments, IMO, are seditious. Was he not prosecuted because of Constitutional protections, or because the Republicans (in D.C.) have no testicles? I suspect a little of both. He should have been censured, at least.

The Islamofascists of HT are guilty of treason. I think they should be removed from western society; either by deportation or 9mm parabellum.

7:32 AM

Blogger ctindel said...

You mean the kind of sedition and treason the founding fathers were committing when they wrote the Declaration of Independence? I'm pretty sure that those same people (many of whom helped write the Constitution) very much wanted to protect Seditious speech, and the right of the people to rise up in arms against rulers that they feel are no longer fit to run the country.

3:12 PM

Blogger The Plumber said...

Good point. There is a very important difference however, the Founders wrote the Declaration as an opposition to tyranny and a promotion of individual liberty. Islam is the exact antithesis of this ideal. Individual liberty is what they hate. Our government, although it has gone the way most governments do, is a damn site better than the theocracies in the Middle East (though only a little better than the Socialist regimes is Europe. Thanks a lot FDR, ya f***ing prick).

Rousseau writes "Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains". The only thing that a government can do is limit liberty. If the seditious or treasonous speech promotes individual liberty, then I will stand behind (and fight with) the person or group being punished for it.

Who is the last politician you heard actually want to promote individual liberty (Ron Paul excluded)?

8:49 PM

Blogger ctindel said...

Your opinions on government come from being raised in a democratically-elected republic where power is derived from the people. In Islam power is derived only from God, so the whole idea of a democratic structure makes almost no sense for their value system. That's why the only government that has ever been successful is one of tyranny.

The idea of a government is not just to take away rights, but to take away some rights to preserve certain others. Since you want to refer to big names, the origin of reasons for gov't can be found, well, all the way back to Aristotle's politcs. But the more relevant text comes from Hobbes, where the life of man in a state of nature is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short". In order to not lead nasty short lives, we give up the right to kill each other whenever we want. In exchange we gain the freedom of speech without having to worry about getting shot in the head.

That freedom of speech is guaranteed even if the speech is un-popular (does popular speech really need protection), and particularly includes seditious, nasty, and hateful speech. In exchange for you getting to say things that drive islamic fundamentalists crazy, you have to let those same fundamentalists say things that drive you crazy. Part of the fun of freedom is speech is that it isn't one directional. :)

10:56 PM

Blogger The Plumber said...

Ah, this is where Rousseau and Aristotle depart from Hobbes. Hobbes believes that man is naturally evil and selfish. Rousseau and Aristotle believe that man is naturally good and selfish.

Hobbes believes that society (and thus a soverign) is formed by mans fear of summum malum, or death, in particular, violent death at the hands of another man. Aristotle thinks that there is some kind of natural attraction toward the good, and toward life in society.

I wonder, do we have a right to kill each other if no government exists? Or is it that there is no legitimate authority to hold accountable for violating another's right to a life free from coercion? Is there such a thing as natural rights? Or do rights exist only if there is a government in place to enforce them. Are rights conferred by government or are we born with them (conferred by God)?

I am agnostic. I am also a diest. I believe that we are born with all of the rights of nature. That is, rights conferred by God. I agree with Rousseau that man is by nature good. I agree with Hobbes only insofar that the only legitimate function of government is to keep people from violating private property rights.

This is where I depart ways with you, apparently. Islam advocates the death of those who won't abdicate to Islam's decrees (infidels). Their rhetoric doesn't simply "drive me crazy", it advocates my death. If these were the words of some lunatic in a compound in Montana, the ramblings would be easy to dismiss with something so trite. These are words of millions of people worldwide. What would Hobbes do? He'd shut the website down. What would Rousseau do? He'd shut the website down.

"Your freedom of speech ends at the point of my nose" -Lincoln

At this point, I could deal with a broken nose. It is small in comparison to pulling my dismembered body from a bus.

9:32 AM

Blogger The Plumber said...

I was just reading over my post and I have two more questions. If we have a right to kill, does it follow that we have no right to life? If we have no right to life, does that invalidate the whole Constitution?

9:39 AM

Blogger ctindel said...

Humans are social creatures, and have tendencies to form social groups (societies).

Lots of questions to answer... I'll distill your 3rd paragraph to "Do we have natural (inalienable) rights, and if so who conferred them?"

I believe we have only one natural right, which is that we can observe in all of nature: The right to stay alive and reproduce. Many other things can be logically deduced from this right. Yes, we have a right to kill each other if it will help us stay alive. The reason we form government is to make sure we can stay alive without killing each other. Imagine what life would be like if all sources of water in Colorado dried up. People would be killing anybody who had bottled water. So, we form governments who can provide such utilities that are essential for life.

The rights are not conferred by a being, because they are a natural right. That is, nature will guarantee the survival of the fittest by whatever means necessary.

As far as man being good or bad by nature... such arguments are clearly depend on your definition of good. Man is selfish and will provide first for himself and family before worrying about others.

Our society has chosen the freedom of speech to be something almost sacred. When our founding fathers sat down to publish a bill of rights, it was the first thing on the list. For better or for worse, this society protects all speech, even unpopular speech that you don't like. Such protection is at the core of our belief system, and has been responsible for our continued success as a country because it means we should be able to criticize each other without fear of retribution.

1:38 PM

Blogger ctindel said...

Right to Kill vs. Right to Life:

If we accept that there is a right to kill, then yes, it means that you have no inherent right to life. You only have a right to try to stay alive.

When you talk about invalidating the constitution, did you mean the Declaration of Independence ("Life, Liberty, pursuit...")? This document's only purpose was political rhetoric, an attempt by the founding fathers to garner support for what they knew was an upcoming revolution. Clearly it is not true that "all men are created equal", yet that statement is in there anyway. Many of these people were slave owners.

The constitution doesn't guarantee a right to life; it just says that you can't be deprived of life without due process. It is clearly irrational to say that it is not OK for men to kill each other, but it is OK for the state to kill.

1:46 PM

Blogger The Plumber said...

No right to life, but a right to stay alive? I haven't been smoking enough, or have I been smoking too much? That statement is exactly too smart by half.

Your Colorado water example is interesting. I don't think we would be driven to kill each other so much as we would be driven to an area that has water. Gosh, it sounds like a real business opportunity to me:-)

Rousseau concludes in his Second Discourse that since primitive societies do not have highly developed governments, written laws, and extensive wealth, civilized life must be the result of historical evolution. Civilization is therefore, not natural. And if they are not natural, then our original condition must have been that of an animal who did not recognize legal or moral obligations: "wandering in the forests, without industry, without speech, without domicile, without war and without liasons, with no need of his fellow-men, likewise with no desire to harm them." This is what I mean by good.

No. Society does not protect all speech. Yelling "FIRE" in a movie theatre is tame in comparison to encouraging devout followers that it is their duty to kill those who don't believe in the holy word of Allah.

I stand corrected with regard to a Constitutional guarantee of life. It is unbelievable, however, that you would consider the Declaration simple "political rhetoric". I personally consider that offensive. The Declaration wasn't voted on like some piss-ant referendum, it was written for the purpose of stating our intentions to the Crown. There was plenty of real propaganda ment to garner support for the revolution. British attempts to quell this propaganda, stop peaceful assembly, and establish a religion had more to do with the First Amendment than some lofty ideal that ALL speech be protected.

I want to know, what happens to the First Amendment if the Jihadists win?

3:24 PM

Blogger ctindel said...

I'm sorry, I made a typo in the first message (fixed in the second one). The right is not "to stay alive" but "to try to stay alive". This ensures the survival of the fittest and man's continued existence.

You can't live that long without water. What if all the water in civilized areas dried up instantly? Most people probably couldn't move their family to the arctic circle before their body gave up, and so people would be killing each other for the temporary resources to stay alive while searching for a more permanent source.

I don't really know what he means by primitive societies not having highly developed governments. Is that some sort of tautology? Because plenty of middle-eastern societies have highly developed governments and written laws, yet I would still call them primitive for executing adulterous women. Civilization IS natural insofar as it is the natural course of all societies over time. That is what we mean by "man being a social creature".

What should we consider the Declaration to be other than political rhetoric? It is full of statements that are simply untrue when examined under the microscope of logic. I'm not saying that our founding fathers weren't doing the right thing, but I'm also not saying that they were any different than the insurgents in Iraq; they didn't like their government, and were willing to go to war and die to get a new one.

And the jihadists won't win, because we are protecting our right to try to continue living by waging war on them. While speech may be protected here, killing innocent people isn't.

3:53 PM

Blogger The Plumber said...

I like you. You are a very smart guy. You are even smarter than me when I was your age. Your analogies are off-base however and the conclusions you draw from them seem rather trite.

Boy, I don't know where to begin with this one so I won't even try. I suggest you read one of the many books that have come out recently about the Founders. I hope you come back to visit but I will understand if you don't.

4:41 PM

Blogger ctindel said...

I'm actually working through the Benjamin Franklin biography right now. Talk about a guy that was anti-establishment!

It is weird to say that some treason is okay but some isn't. Who is to define what is and isn't okay? Besides the people that win the fight, that is... :)

5:05 PM

Blogger The Plumber said...

IMO, extremism, in defense of liberty, is no vice. What can I say? I want liberty.

I want to be as close to a state of nature as possible. I am willing (and have been) to live up to the contract that the Founders established, which put me within resonable limits to this state of nature. Some people think that the government of this country is a is a democracy. It is not. We are a Constitutional Republic. We simply make decisions democratically. Democracy is nothing more than mob rule. The Constitution is written to protect the individual from mob rule (and other types of tyranny). The Constitution therefore protects the individual from democracy.

I wish more people understood this and left me the f*** alone!

8:35 PM

Blogger ctindel said...

What do you think is wrong with the extremists in Iraq? All they want is the liberty to form their own government without any meddling from the United States. So they're killing the soldiers occupying their country and people that support them.... we did the same thing in the revolutionary war.

11:23 PM

Blogger The Plumber said...

Uuh, they have the liberty to form their own government. They are doing it now. The elections results and the turnout are proof of that. The United States is not setting up a puppet regiem. If we were, the government that the Iraqi's are establishing would have no legitimacy. Again, the elections and the turnout provide that legitimacy.

Most of the accounts that I have read indicate that the "insurgents" are actually foreign fighters coming in from Syria and Iran.

10:20 AM


Post a Comment

<< Home