About Me

Name: Michael Cannon...
Email: mcomcorp@gmail.com
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

More Cases for the Ends Principle


More Cases for The Ends Principle 
The case of the Somali pirates and the Maesrk Alabama illustrates that even the left can make a correct moral decision when the alternatives are dramatically divergent. The pirates disregarded the Ends Principle by using the crew and the captain of the Maesrk Alabama as a means to their ends of extorting money.  The US government had a choice to make; either respect the desires of the pirates by giving in to their wishes and allowing the crew and captain to be the means to their ends, or respect the wishes of the crew and captain to be treated as ends in and of themselves by stopping the pirates blatant use of them.  Even Obama could not get away with doing anything other than eliminate the pirates.  And he did it correctly... first applying minimal force and then gradually increasing force until faced with the prospect that the prisoners rights would be permanently taken if he did not use lethal force.  The Obama administration took the action necessary to restore the moral sphere where all people respect the choices of others by treating them as ends and not as means; The Golden Rule, The Ends Principle.  The decision to sanction the pirates was easy.  They clearly are the ones whose life plan was designed to use others to their ends.  They were stopped, by a gradually increasing application of force until the moral sphere was restored.  Only the far left complained that the pirates were only "teenagers" or "black teenagers" and the US response went too far.  The situation was made more blatant by the fact that the ship was carrying aid supplies to impoverished countries.   The pirates rants that they will seek out and kill all Americans they catch out there are mostly bluff and will lead to more sanctions and lethal action by the US and other countries.  The US has a clear path to the actions they will follow in that part of the world.  Thwart the actions of those who will break the moral sphere.  Raids on their strongholds, interdiction of their mother ships at sea, and convoys seem like good starting points in a gradual escalation of force to insure the moral sphere remains in tact. 
 
Now, contrast that clear and concise action to any number of other issues the administration faces.  Not the least of which is the issue we discussed a few days ago. The terrorist prisoner with the knowledge of where a bomb is hidden that will kill thousands is like the pirates, but the administration is unwilling to use escalating force to learn what it needs to know to save the innocent thousands, thwart their use as means to the terrorist ends and restore the moral sphere.  It is not that torture is not abhorrent, it is, but it is not a core principle that sustains the moral sphere.  It is a tactic, to be used in gravest extreme, at the end of a process of gradually escalating use of force until all that can be done to restore the moral sphere has been done, up to and including torture.  There is no doubt that we would use force thru war or other retaliatory actions if the bomb did go off and kill thousands of innocent people.  But if we allowed that to happen we would have allowed the evildoers the upper hand and control of our actions and, most importantly, we would have allowed the destruction of the moral sphere and used the murdered thousands as a "means" to the end of an even larger use of force to restore it. 
 
There are a lot of other issues where the administration is consistently misunderstanding the Ends Principle and how to use it.  North Korea and ballistic missiles that we know are designed to carry nuclear warheads and be sold to evil regimes, Iran yellow cake and nuclear centrifuges designed to enrich uranium to weapons grade levels, NATO nations use of our troops and money to defend them without any commensurate participation, gigantic spending now that takes away our prosperity and puts our children and grand children in debt, and the situation below that discusses states rights vs the federal government.  There are a lot more, but most come from a willful inaction on the part of our government to recognize what is the clear intent of the evildoers and stop it before it causes great harm. 
 
The Ends Principle springs from natural law, common sense and the millennial long process of trial and error that has led western civilization to see that some actions work better than others to advance a just society.     Whether we see the error of the path Obama and the congress is taking before it wreaks havoc on our society or after it causes long term harm, we will see the effects and the long corrective process will occur that will bring us back to better balance. 
 
The mistakes made by well meaning leftists have a lot of different causes but the fact that they can affect a post modern society so drastically points out the truth of Thomas Sowell's contention that societies today are far more fragile, interdependent and susceptible to smaller and smaller disruptions than ever before.  
 
Maybe this states rights thing is good.  We may be able to  blunt the impact of the federal government and restore some balance here too.
 
  
 
 
Whatever Happened to States’ Rights?
by Ben Shapiro
 
Poll 

On Tuesday, Texas Gov. Rick Perry issued a statement in support of a state resolution supporting states’ rights under the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. “I believe that our federal government has become oppressive in its size, its intrusion into the lives of our citizens, and its interference with the affairs of our state,” Perry stated. “I believe that returning to the letter and spirit of the U.S. Constitution and its essential 10th Amendment will free our state from undue regulations, and ultimately strengthen our union.”

Perry’s statement is a clarion call for more local sovereignty, for less command-and-control from above. But is it too late for states to regain their status in the great struggle for policymaking power implemented by the Constitution?

The US Constitution contemplates constant friction between the states and the federal government. The states had to ratify the creation of the federal government, so it is no wonder that they chose to restrict the power of the federal government and to maintain their own. In 1798, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison joined to write the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, which declared that “the powers of the federal government … (result) from the compact, to which the states are parties … in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.”

In simpler terms, the states, according to the framers, were duty-bound to resist action by the federal government superseding its allotted authority under the Constitution. To that end, the states reserved to themselves the chief authority to tax, to raise militias, and to carry out the day-to-day activities required by government.

It was a brilliant structure. The federal government could not redistribute money and resources from taxpayers of one state to taxpayers of another without running up against resistance from the states, seeking to safeguard their own sovereignty. The federal government could not take over the states’ interest in the education, welfare and protection of their own citizens -- and so the federal government remained small. The states’ role was simple: they were to be “laboratories of democracy” run by local citizens, in the words of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis.

Sadly, states misused their authority. Certain states claimed that it was within their power to sanction slavery. And so the laboratories of democracy became torture chambers of democracy, with majorities oppressing minorities.

The federal response to the slavery question was quick and right – President Abraham Lincoln’s Civil War restored for all time the founding promises of the Declaration of Independence. Despite the Civil War, however, the legacy of Jim Crow further eroded the moral authority of states’ rights. And the federal government, wielding the ethical imperatives of both racial equality, stepped in. States’ rights advocates were forever branded as bigoted Orval Faubus types, standing in the doorways of segregated schoolhouses.

And so the federal government took control of abortion policy. It took control of tax policy, blaming the states for “regressive” laissez-faire doctrine. It took control of education and health care. And states, eager for federal cash, largely acceded in the shift toward federal power.

Now states are surprised to find that their ability to resist federal directives has been all but extinguished. They are surprised that they are no longer able to set their own standards regarding social, economic, or criminal policy. They are surprised that through a combination of moral blindness and drooling greed, they surrendered their role in the constitutional system.

It is not too late. The first step toward the reinstitution of local government as a force in American life must begin with resistance to the total federalization of the economy. States can start by taking the moral high ground and refusing federal “stimulus” dollars.

If they do not, federal government will, once and for all, become a government of unlimited powers. And the laboratories of democracy will be closed down once and for all in the name of nationalized leftism.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive