Beretta92FSLady has, for some inexplicable reason, artificially placed a hard line between what she considers "reality" and "philosophy". That this is a perspective without merit seems lost on her.
First of all, it's impossible to analyze the "real" without philosophy. It's even further impossible to decide what might be made better, and the reasons why we might do this.
You see this in her: a constant refrain to "do something about it", ironic coming from her because her anti-philosophical platform has led to a status-quo conservatism which would embarrass the staunchest neocon. (Which goes to show that the notion that "conservatism" is automatically a pro-liberty stance is baloney, at least when the last century of tradition is one of incessant encroachment upon right and liberty, delivered equally by both the "progressive" left and the "conservative" right.)
It sounds like tough talk, until you realize she's incapable of even identifying change she would like to make. But you can be damn sure, if she could, she'd
do something about it.
Back in the real world, philosophy is the foundation on which all political change, good or bad, occurs. Even xenophobic, populist movements are driven by (bad) philosophy.
I am considered by those who know me to be very persuasive, and a tough debater (especially in impromptu, informal discussions). I routinely observe myself having convinced someone of some or other difficult, controversial position, often some time after our debate on the subject appeared to end in stalemate. And you know what? (Folks on the forum should recognize this to be true: ) I almost
never resort to utilitarian primary arguments. My arguments are always moral, backed with a bonus icing of reference to fact and efficacy. They are, in a word: philosophical.
My advice: don't listen to B92FSL when she tries to distinguish the "real" from the "philosophical". Those who do render themselves impotent, intellectually and in "meatspace".
The irony runs deep with this one (and with the immensely unimpressive John Adams). Of course, the idea Adams was trying to convey is that the final authority ought to be the law, rather than a single person (a king, for instance). I imagine eye think he's made a clever reference to Obama (Bush III) and his partisan fantasy that Obama is any more of an autocrat that was Bush II, or Bush IV will be when the GOP snakes win next time around. It should be no surprise, though, that eye95 champions this view: his law-and-order statism is tempered by a desire for liberty
only on those issues where the law is out of alignment with his own lifestyle.
But this reveals a statism so deep it fails to understand the true nature of tyranny, instead conflating a momentary alignment of law with one's own belief as a lack of tyranny.
Take, for instance, Hitler. Few would reject the notion that Hitler was a demagogue, a individual who imposed his will on a nation, and who therefore created a "nation of a man" (himself). What Adams' childishly simplistic perspective fails to take into account was that Hitler was
also obsessed with the rule of law.
Everything Hitler did was legal. He carefully crafted the law to be precisely as he desired. And so, Nazi Germany was
both a "nation of laws" and a "nation of men." The powerful men had ultimate authority, with the law nothing but their instrument in achieving this.
To a statist, the Adams quote seems deep and powerful. To a minarchist (or sometimes closet anarchist like myself), it's a sad joke. A "nation of laws" is nothing to aspire to
unless the law is strictly and exclusively just, moral, and nonaggressive. Our law is little more than a kick in the face to morality or non-aggression.
Which is where the second level of irony comes in. Our country
should be a "nation of men" – not powerful, despotic men – but the people. That's not to say a majority should be given
carte blanche to abuse or disenfranchise a minority. It is to say that we – the people – ought to be government's interest.
Today, we have a government with "law enforcement", individuals whose job it is to enforce the law simply for existing, not because its violation created a victim, or because they personally believe its violation represented a wrong. We have a government which imposes laws upon the people (without even popular support), stripping us of our rights and jailing us for violating archaic, Victorian social mores (puritanism is not moral). We have a country where most people oppose gun control, but the government tries to pass it anyway. And they would then enforce it using their "Law Enfarcement Officers" who place the law on an altar above freedom, life, and basic human right and dignity. The same thing applies to the perpetuation of marijuana prohibition. And, worst of all, this is all done fairly overtly to further
government's interest, at the explicit expense of The Peoples' freedoms or property. The much-ballyhooed law, in short, serves nothing but itself.
I'd say, therefore, that what we have today is
precisely a "nation of laws and not of men", and that this is a
terrible thing. The law should never be placed above the rights of men, nor should it be deified or lauded for its own sake.
I'd also say that Adams was an authoritarian, statist dolt.
The irony is furthered by the fact that, as a statist progressive, B92FSL is as much a proponent of a "nation of laws" as is eye95. They would merely squabble over
which laws to aggressively impose on each other, and collaterally on the rest of us.
