Balko Repudiates Constitution and Bill Of Rights!
Jun 20, 06 | 11:29 pm by John T. Kennedy“Fundamental rights aren’t subject to the democratic process.”
Granted I was just skimming but surely this announces Radley’s long overdue rejection of statism.
June 21st, 2006 at Jun 21, 06 | 12:00 am
What is he, some kind of anarchist?
June 21st, 2006 at Jun 21, 06 | 7:55 am
Hey, maybe he’ll come around. He is a youngster, after all.
June 21st, 2006 at Jun 21, 06 | 8:58 am
Lopez,
I don’t see any other charitable reading of that quote.
June 21st, 2006 at Jun 21, 06 | 12:14 pm
“Fundamental rights aren’t subject to the democratic process.” is not necessarily an anarchist position. The same idea is just as compatible with, say, monarchism. E.g. fundamental rights aren’t subject to the democratic process, but they are subject to royal fiat.
June 21st, 2006 at Jun 21, 06 | 9:30 pm
Context, James. Context.
June 21st, 2006 at Jun 21, 06 | 11:34 pm
I’m pretty sure Balko’d deny being a monarchist.
Of course he’d probably deny being an anarchist as well.
June 22nd, 2006 at Jun 22, 06 | 11:39 pm
I picked monarchism as a particular example to prove the concept. Other statisms would work as well. E.g. fundamental rights aren’t subject to the democratic process, but they are subject to the pronouncements of a government made up of people who think just like Balko. Think he’d deny that?
June 23rd, 2006 at Jun 23, 06 | 11:51 pm
James,
I’m not disputing what you’re saying. I’m confident that Balko would deny or evade your last comment though because I judge that Balko aspires to the punditry. And you don’t get into the punditry by saying certain things (such as: “I’m a monarchist!” or “I’m an anarchist!” or “This government of the Peepul owns your fucking ass and can rightfully dispose of you as it sees fit!”).
We’ve dealt with Radley before, and he even responded for a while before he realized he had the short end of the stick. Google around in here and tell me if I’m wrong.
June 24th, 2006 at Jun 24, 06 | 3:54 pm
Arguing for any kind of “right” is just arguing for a longer leg chain.
“Rights” only apply to governments who play nice on rare occasion, give a few then take ‘em away when the moon is full.
A bad con, “rights”.
June 24th, 2006 at Jun 24, 06 | 9:52 pm
Hogwash. If you believe in property, you believe in rights, regardless of what you want to call it. The concept is wholly independent of government.