Here is something for you to consider as you ponder your targeting matrix.
The "ideal" of "Journalism" is objectivity. Who, what, where, when, why and how.
The reality of journalism, dating all the way back to our Founding and beyond, is issue advocacy under the guise of objectivity. Once the First Amendment came into play, there was Constitutional protection for this issue advocacy.
First point: Let's remember that the First Amendment is a Right "The Government" may not infringe. For all of you "journalists" who have written deliberately mean-spirited pieces on me over the years, the First Amendment doesn't protect your nose from my fist. I have no problem doing 30-90 days for squishing your nose.
My personal consideration, always, is "intent". Was the writer of the piece writing in good faith, or not. If he or she was truly trying to be objective, I've got no beef, even if you get a few facts wrong. But if you are a Lefty slug using "Freedom of the Press" as a tool to attack your enemies, you are a Leftist slug, first and foremost - and Leftist slugs need to leave.
Obviously, Matt Drudge is a Good Guy. I won't bother listing "Bad Guys" - I don't have that much space, even in the digital age.
Before you yell at me for being hypocritical, let me make clear: I am NOT the ideal of a journalist. I am NOT TRYING to be a real "Journalist". Everything I write is advocacy of my beliefs, which happen to be Constitutional, etc. I'm not hiding under the moniker of "Journalist" when I write a story and send it to the printer and print 30,000 copies on broadsheet and send it to homes in a particular town/city (as I used to do every 2 weeks, and will do again soon). I'm a hardcore believer in our Founder's Intent and I write as such. (My thanks to The Trainer for adding "Founder's Intent" to my vocabulary long ago.)
Remember when Thomas Jefferson said the most honest part of any newspaper was the advertisements - he meant it, and it remains true today. He (and Madison) started (secretly) the National Gazette as a means of attacking his political enemies using his Editor as a cut-out. Just an FYI - the III have our own newspaper, in print, and with a nod to Jefferson and Madison, we title it the "III National Gazette".
Do you consider Lefty "Journalists" who are obviously advocating for tyranny under the cover of 1A to be Enemy Combatants? Do they get a free pass when you start moving through your AO turning in Constitutional Oath Breakers to the Tribunals? Do you weigh each "Journalist" individually?
The King would have hung the Pamphleteers in a hot second, if he could have gotten them.
Does your personal definition of "Constitutional Behavior" extend to the "Journalist" who uses his position and megaphone to blatantly advocate for unconstitutional acts and policies?
This is rhetorical, it doesn't need to be discussed. This is one of those conversations you need to have with the voices in your own head (you have them too, right?), and with your most trusted Tribe.
Though - I have stated my position already: If you advocate the undermining of the Constitutional values of the republic, if you advocate the violation of Constitutional parameters articulated in the Constitution and BoR, "Freedom of the Press" will not save you. You should pack a bag and move to another country now, because you should hang right next to the politician who voted to violate those principles, and next to him should be the idiot who voted for the politician who would knowingly and willfully act to violate the Constitution. All three of you are on the same team of anti-Constitutionalists.
Actions have consequences, and there are times when words equal action.
Kerodin
III
“The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers” Thomas Jefferson
ReplyDelete"Actions have consequences, and there are times when words equal action."
ReplyDeleteActually, not; that's why they're readily distinguishable concepts.
Yes, intent is always conceptual; it's built of words (and judgments) just as you say. It's even fair to say that honest intent is tantamount to action. You don't wait for a perp to actually squeeze the trigger before you drop him. Duh.
It still doesn't get you where you want to go. It's that same old contradiction again. Rule of Law (more precisely, Rule of Men who Choose to Abide Law) implies a social context---it involves men using force against other men because those other men chose to use force themselves. This is basic to all civil constructs and is the supposed goal of tying Rule of Law to "objective standards," which means that such force can be used ONLY in response to ACTUAL, PHYSICAL action. The perp threatening to rob you is a physical action; his dreaming it the day before is not.
The point should be obvious. You cannot have Rule of Law with regard to what people THINK, even when what they think sucks beyond all belief. You can only have "objective standards" across a population with regard to what they DO.
Period. To accept otherwise puts one at risk of the insane thinking turning on you. This is not acceptable in any sort of Constitutional Republic designed to protect the rights of every individual. If the desire of a socialist utopia--in a CONCEPTUAL manner--is a crime, then so may be the refusal to accept the grandeur and power of Allah. In a heartbeat you'd be right back to majoritarianism, that sick-fuck thinking everyone calls "Democracy" but is really plain ol' Mob Rule.
OBJECTIVE standards--in a SOCIAL context, not merely individual judgment--can only be applied to ACTIONS. Otherwise it's just pretentious mind-reading. This is the whole point of the NAP or ZAP...one may not initiate FORCE against another. Imposing force on another for what he THINKS, is synonymous with imposing force for what he believes, and so is antithetical to the NAP, or even any semi-sane approach to the Rule of Law.
Assuming there is any semi-sane approach of course, but that's a topic for another day. All that matters here is that YOU think Rule of Law can exist and if so, it cannot exist simultaneously with aggressing against another person for what he believes. For that matter, not even for what he does, UNTIL AND UNLESS that action is against another free-willed person.
Again, you're spot-on about the connection between what a person thinks and what he does---that's fully valid. But that connection does not transform non-defensive force into defensive force, which are both objectively discernible PHYSICAL actions. And socially, at least if you're sticking with Rule of Law, you cannot have physical action in response to anything but physical action. Well, not while remaining consistent with Rightful Liberty, you can't.
Read Jefferson's quote closely---the other guy's will must be unobstructed, as long as he doesn't obstruct anyone else's. Some idiot dreaming about a socialist nirvana doesn't obstruct your will; only him trying to impose one, does that.
Sorry to be so long, but it's an important issue. I'm VERY sympathetic to the point, that hundreds of millions of mind-numbed idiots are the sine qua non for the existence of the looting scumbags and their accomplices, not to mention the jackbooted, black-hooded thugs. But blame simply doesn't matter; only winning and living matters. Plus, an OPFOR of several million is a tough enough challenge; a force of 200 million is simply too much to handle.
It's a point that many in FREEFOR refuse to accept---if the rational man is to be free, then so must the irrational man. That's not any sort of problem at all; reality and markets take care of eliminating the irrational...quickly.
Jim: We agree - look at these snippets from what you wrote: ...which means that such force can be used ONLY in response to ACTUAL, PHYSICAL action.
DeleteAnd: The perp threatening to rob you is a physical action; his dreaming it the day before is not.
The person voting for the politician who promises he will help pass legislation that infringes my Rightful Liberty is as responsible for that infringement as the voter. The voter pulls the lever - action that results in infringement upon my Rights.
Just as the robber with a pistol tells me he intends to rob me has initiated force, so too does the Soccer Mom who advises me that she intends to vote for or send money to people or groups that intend to infringe my 2A.
That is self defense - and self defense is the fundamental Right of every creature introduced by our Creator.
Just as I do not need to wait for the robber to pull his trigger, I need not wait for the politician to pass the law that infringes me, or the voter who deliberately puts that politician into office, or the clerk at the courthouse who processes the paperwork to enforce the law, to the person who arrives with a clipboard or pistol and badge to enforce the new law.
They are morally acceptable targets.
Thinking it is one thing, and they are not to be touched. But words that are intended to initiate force are "Fighting Words" - in my world.
K
Excellent response. Your morality happens to make sense to me, but it doesn't really matter. That's why you're making my point, not yours. Morality is ONLY an individual act of cognition and it's IMPOSSIBLE to codify it across a population. I can point to a thermometer to verify the temperature, but there's nothing to which to point, to verify intent in the absence of action. Once you try to codify (which means force in this context) the individual decisions of morality, there is nothing at your avail except what a person DOES. It's this recognition which was the basis for chasing "objective Rule of Law" in the first place.
ReplyDeleteIt's also why it fails, and why it MUST fail. As you so clearly explain, the underlying action is wholly cognitive and you can only codify (force) physical action.
That's why we are where we are---a bunch of nitwits have developed a personal morality built on looting and mooching from others. So since their thinking is protected by Law, the manifestation of that--all the bullshit we see around us--is a direct outgrowth of that idiotic thinking.
Remember, my point is not, "Your morality is bullshit and the next guy's morality is better." My point is, "It's that same old contradiction again."
The American POV was unique in that it accepted the cognitive basis that is so obvious to you and me. That's why "the pursuit of happiness" is foundational, not to mention individual rights, private property and so on.
The problem was never about the goals of the Founders; they're as pure as the driven snow, and obviously so. The problem is that the goal can't be reached through codification across a society. Technically, the contradiction is this...you can't instantiate that which is wholly an matter of individual volition by imposing it on individuals, thereby abridging the individual volition in the first place. Just think about the logic of it.
Then take a look at the evidence.