B

The problem is that while Hayek identifies the dangers of governmental control of economics, he doesn’t indict a rigorous rule of law. This is the key in the argument. Nazi Germany is always used as an example of democracy gone awry, giving up economic and military direction based on propaganda and pride. The ACLU et al want to use this pit to always remind us that under our very noses, we could allow our own government to erase all our rights. Working on this premise, all attempts to undercut perceived liberties must me treated as a direct assault on all freedom. I say perceived because I don’t believe that my web surfing habits at a publicly funded library are a “right” granted to me in the first place.

It’s not to say that we can be relaxed in regard to governmental intervention, but our response has to be reasoned based on the degree of intervention and the effect of giving up that ground.

The reason I’ll never call myself a libertarian is that they are forced to follow these protections to ends that are just plain silly, if not self detrimental as a society. I want citizens of this country to have due process, but I recognize a difference between citizens and enemy combatants. They are not the same, and I don’t believe that I’m giving up my freedoms (no matter what the ACLU and Dick Durbin tells me) when they are treated differently.

I had an acquaintance in college that was planning on going to law school and had a deep love and respect for the ACLU, argued for absolute individual freedom, and proudly called himself a libertarian (although the libertarian and ACLU in him were often in conflict). When arguing about the rule of law, he was forced by his dogma to take such radical views of freedom, that his arguments became asinine. For example, he was fond of saying, “I’d rather a thousand guilty men go free, than one innocent man falsely convicted.” Personally, I wouldn’t! The system isn’t perfect, but that doesn’t mean that we need to do away with the rule of law to ensure no liberty is ever unjustly taken.

Good topic though. And as a side note, I know it is in form to comment that the parties are no different, but if that’s so, why not vote for Kerry in the last election?

Oh yeah, and three words for you:

WASTING YOUR VOTE

A clean conscience doesn’t get pro-constitution justices appointed to the courts.