THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Number 591, October 11, 2010
"Privacy is ultimately about liberty while
surveillance is always about control"
Special to The Libertarian Enterprise
I would like to comment on the article in TLE describing the pathetic meaningless of the Republican Party's supposed 'Pledge With America'. ["The Pledge To America: A Sucker's Bet" by Russell D. Longcore Editor]
This supposed 'Pledge' is meaningless, because despite it's 21 page length, it is actually LESS, not MORE binding, than the oath taken by most government officials upon assuming office. That oath, which most of them promptly ignore, requires them to 'uphold' the Constitution. I regard the word 'uphold' in this usage to be an active verb, requiring them to actively OBEY the constitution.
The verb 'honor' on the other hand, which is used in their new 'Pledge With America' is a much more passive verb, requiring them only to have a particular emotional state regarding the Constitution. As such, it means absolutely nothing, because it is pretty much impossible to prove that someone does or does not have a particular emotional state.
I think a comparison to another 'Pledge' is definitely in Order here, namely the marriage pledge, or vow, taken by a man and his wife. In times past, a wife promised to love, honor, and OBEY her husband. Nowadays, the verb 'Obey' is often omitted from marriage vows. It is omitted, because it is assumed by most Western cultures nowadays, that the woman is the moral and intellectual equal of the man, therefore should not be required to 'Obey' him. In other cultures of the world, and in past times, women were regarded as morally and intellectually inferior to men, therefore were required to obey men, either her father or her husband.
This is directly applicable to the so-called 'Pledge With America', because by their own admission, in the 'Pledge' they wrote themselves, the current crop of politicians in Washington, are the moral and intellectual inferiors of the Founding Fathers, who wrote the Constitution. As such, a pledge to OBEY the Constitution, would be appropriate, as well as being actually meaningful, as it would actually require real change on the part of the politicians. Unfortunately, OBEYing the Constitution would interfere with pursuing their own tyrannical interests, so the politicians who concocted this Pledge are no more interested in including such a word in their 'Pledge' that would actually hold them to something, any more than a woman of poor morals, planning even while she is on the altar with her husband, of ways to commit adultery, would care to actually 'Pledge' to, much less, actually OBEY him. She will not hesitate, however, to promise to 'Honor' her husband, as it's impossible to prove that a woman, even one who cheats on her husband several times a day, does or does not feel some particular emotionals state such as 'honor' towards her husband.
I am tired of the waffle syrup. I am tired of hearing how politicians claim they are going to 'feel' or their making ambiguous or completely unspecified promises. Such Obama's famous campaign promise for 'Change'. Any action, good or bad, constitutes 'Change'.
No intelligent person or business would EVER sign a contract with language as meaningless as that which the politicians see fit to use with the citizens of this country. There would be no way, with such a vaguely worded contract, to defend their rights in court. The politicians need to quit with the waffle syrup and crocodile tears right now, and start speaking precisely. Exactly what ACTIONS are they going to take? And what assurances are there that they will not abrogate those actions by other actions. Such as, for instance, their claim that they will reduce the taxes on small business by 20%. That's utterly meaningless without a foolproof contract specifying that they will not raise taxes, or fees, or any other sort of government revenue raising method elsewhere.
Likewise, this 'Pledge' is also meaningless, because it contains no clause for enforcement. This omission, again, constitutes something that would prevent any intelligent citizen or business from ever signing any other sort of contract with anyone. Almost all contracts contain specific penalties, usually financial in nature, for those who violate the terms of the contract.
So basically, the politicians have 'Pledged' NOTHING that can be either proven or disproven, they have not created any means of enforcement or penalties, should they fail to carry out this 'Pledge', which does not require any provable actions on their part anyways, yet despite having promised absolutely nothing, they expect the American public to trust them that they are somehow going to radically change the dishonorable behavior they have been engaged in for well over 100 years, and which is, in fact, highly profitable to them.
Well, I do not 'trust' them on that basis, any more than I would trust a thief who made millions of dollars a year, to stop stealing, on such a basis. Now, if you let me put some gloves on the thief, that will cut off his hands and subsequently cause him to bleed to death, should I discover him stealing again, then I might possibly 'trust' him. Not before.