Food for Thought

For any of you with e-readers of some kind (insert unsolicited plug for B&N's Nook here), you should go peruse the archives at Project Gutenberg. It has all sorts of wonderful works that have made their way into the public domain of copyright. Works such as St. Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's The White Company. It also has, to my delight, a number of works by G.K. Chesterton. This gives me the opportunity to read Orthodoxy and Eugenics and Other Evils. The latter piece starts with the following paragraph:

The wisest thing in the world is to cry out before you are hurt. It is no good to cry out after you are hurt; especially after you are mortally hurt. People talk about the impatience of the populace; but sound historians know that most tyrannies have been possible because men moved too late. It is often essential to resist tyranny before it exists. It is no answer to say, with a distant optimism, that the scheme is only in the air. A blow from a hatchet can only be parried while it is in the air.

That opening paragraph illustrates, far better than I could, why arguments consisting of what may be characterized as "scare tactics" have some merit. It is a statement that is at the core of my reasons for arguing for limitations of government, and why I typically am not in favor of extensions of government power.

I know that I have friends who simply cannot understand my willingness to "prevent people from receiving adequate medical care because they can't afford it" and other such stances to curb social welfare projects. I believe those friends have the best of intentions. Nor am I unsympathetic to the needs of the, for lack of a better word, needy. I simply think that our government is one of strictly confined powers and those bounds should not be exceeded, no matter how good the intentions. (Good Intentions: sponsored by Hell Paving & Asphalt Co.)

Perhaps I could have more fully formed this post before writing, but if I tried to do that, I never would get anything done. That said, as I read more of Eugenics, I will pass on more political/ethical thoughts from the Chesterton/Cramer distillation project. (Ha, evidence of the supreme arrogance of a law student to make that comparison.)

Alles Ist Wunderbar

I got an article in my email today that I found remarkable. At first blush, the idea of denying the success of multiculturalism seems alien to us as Americans. Even in light of Teddy Roosevelt's famous quote denouncing the place of "hyphenated Americanism," Americans seem to believe in multiculturalism as part and parcel of what being American actually means as a culture. We cling to the idea of America as a melting-pot of other cultures and pride ourselves in our inclusiveness. This view of multiculturalism reflects the formation of America and our colonial heritage. This is not the view of multiculturalism held in Europe.

I mention this as a prelude to drawing your attention to the article I mentioned already. Germany has declared its multicultural efforts a failure and is, surprisingly, becoming vocal in its efforts to promote a German national identity.

This excerpt from Germany and the Failure of Multiculturalism is republished with permission of STRATFOR.

Anyone could become an American, so long as they accepted the language and dominant culture of the nation. This left a lot of room for uniqueness, but some values had to be shared. Citizenship became a legal concept. It required a process, an oath and shared values. Nationality could be acquired; it had a price.

To be French, Polish or Greek meant not only that you learned their respective language or adopted their values — it meant that you were French, Polish or Greek because your parents were, as were their parents. It meant a shared history of suffering and triumph. One couldn’t acquire that.

For the Europeans, multiculturalism was not the liberal and humane respect for other cultures that it pretended to be. It was a way to deal with the reality that a large pool of migrants had been invited as workers into the country. The offer of multiculturalism was a grand bargain meant to lock in migrant loyalty in exchange for allowing them to keep their culture — and to protect European culture from foreign influences by sequestering the immigrants.

Read more: Germany and the Failure of Multiculturalism | STRATFOR

Oh, by the way, I hope to post a little more frequently again. Then again, law school may leave me with little in the way of extra time.

Lay Down a Life

Less politics today, more philosophy.

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. - John Stewart Mill

A man who won't die for something is not fit to live. - Martin Luther King Jr.

What do these quotes have in common? One is from a pacifist while the other is a justification for violent conflict, so how could they possibly say the same thing to me? They both firmly advocate a willingness to put one's life on the line for the defense of ideals or country. The main difference I can see is that Mill argues for the willingness to put a life on the line, be it mine or that of those who oppose me.

I think that contrasting Mill's statement with Dr. King's nonviolent approach reveals less of a logical difference than one might expect. They both advocate a willingness to lay down a life for the advancement of something larger than the individual; in both cases, that something larger happens to be the illusive concept of Liberty. The only difference is that the pacifist is constrained by ideology to that life only being his own, whereas Mill would argue that the choice to take a life includes that of the life of any who threaten the collective liberty of the people, not just one's own.

I'm not trying to advocate anything today. I just think that people need to be reminded that hardship is not the same as sacrifice and that allowing one's liberty to be infringed, even if one is kicking and screaming about it, is still capitulation.

Equality by way of Corruption?

Define corruption in a political sense. What do you think it should mean? Is it the use of political power in favor of one group to the detriment of another? Or is that just politics.

I found an article over on Townhall that made me think about this. The article doesn't focus on the under the table dealings of politicians, though it does mention them. The main point Goldberg is trying to make is that political corruption can be blatant, pernicious, and there for all to see and still not be stopped. It can even be applauded when the people do not understand the implications.

As you know, I can't leave a post well enough alone until I have a quote or two in it. Here are today's gems:

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to
govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be
necessary." -- James Madison, Federalist No. 51

"Free government is founded in jealousy, not confidence. It is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind those we are obliged to trust with power.... In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." -- Thomas Jefferson, 1799

I chose these two for one simple reason: they both highlight the need to remember that our government was not founded to help people. It was founded to protect the people from interference and allow them to help themselves. People forget the mindset that built our economy. Henry Ford best summed it up on February 11, 1934 when he said, "Let them fail; let everybody fail! I made my fortune when I had nothing to start with, by myself and my own ideas. Let other people do the same thing. If I lose everything in the collapse of our financial structure, I will start in at the beginning and build it up again."

Edit: The Washington Post published something similar.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/13/AR2009051303014_pf.html

Sedition

Sedition is a word not often found in the American vocabulary. Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary defines it as “The raising of commotion in a state, not amounting to insurrection; conduct tending to treason, but without an overt act; excitement of discontent against the government, or of resistance to lawful authority.” That looks like it covers a rather narrow spectrum on the path to treason; but then, what is treason?

According to the Constitution of the United States of America, Article III, Section 3, “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.” When is it an act against the United States? Is it an act contrary to the interests of the State, or contrary to the government du jour? Is it treason to act against the government but in support of the nation?

The Constitution was born out of the desire to ensure the freedoms of the people. The authors knew that people need and desire the ability to govern their own lives. To this end, the Constitution was written to limit the ability of the government to interfere in our lives. The balance of power between the three branches of the government was designed to make it more difficult for those in power to encroach on our freedoms. The Bill of Rights was written to more specifically detail what we as a people have a right to; in other words, it details in what things we have a freedom from our government. All of this freedom comes at the cost of our responsibility. We are to be responsible for our own actions, and the consequences thereof. Out Founding Fathers were particularly clear in their personal speeches and writings as to what their opinions on the matter of taking personal responsibility instead of abdicating accountability to an outside force, such as a government, were. A few quotations of what I mean are to follow:

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania (1759)

"Against us are... all timid men who prefer the calm of despotism to the boisterous sea of liberty... We are likely to preserve the liberty we have obtained only by unremitting labors and perils." --Thomas Jefferson to Philip Mazzei, 1796. ME 9:336

"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first."-- Thomas Jefferson

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined." -- Patrick Henry, Virginia's Ratification convention, 1788

"I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedoms of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." -- James Madison

But, as times have changed, must we change our views on for what the government is responsible? As our world and political climate has grown more complicated, are these opinions outdated and no longer functional? I, for one, do not believe that advances in society mean that we must have different principles. I cannot conscience the thought of relinquishing my freedom to gain freedom from my mistakes. The idea of allowing some entity to bail me out of my own mess is unfathomable. If you take responsibility for what I have done, I become indebted to you…I allow you to make my decisions. If you have responsibility for my life and make my decisions, it is no longer mine. Once a person gives over their responsibility, they say that someone else is more knowledgeable about their needs and wants. I don’t know about you, but I believe that no one can better decide for me what I need than I can. If you believe that the people in Washington are better than you at knowing your situation, then by all means, allow them to run your life. But remember, people in power are still mere people. Government is made up of fallible people and there is no guarantee that a government decree is any more trustworthy than the decree of someone on the subway sitting next to you.

The Founding Fathers knew they were mere mortals, as prone to mistakes as the next man. This is why they wanted the Constitution framed in a manner that put the government in a position of subservience to the people. Once the American people remember that our founding documents name us as the source of power, we will need a good, long look at what our government has been doing in the time between then and now.

"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government" -- James Madison

If the government abandons the ideals of the Constitution and its authors, is it still lawful and moral to support it?

Is it seditious to ask?

Economic Policy or Economic Paradigm?

This article on Yahoo News was brought to my attention today. President Obama's desire for stable economic growth is understandable, laudable even. However, wanting economic growth in a free market without accepting the fact that free markets have downturns as well as growth is something of a pipe dream. As I have said before, one of the fundamental features of a free market is the unstable nature of growth. To change that would be to change the economic system which we live with and, as has been shown numerous times by the countries that try centralized economic planning and heavy price regulation, the chaotic nature of capitalism tends to promote growth best.

Now, I understand the President says he doesn't wish to supplant the private sector, merely to regulate it in such a manner as to prevent the “reckless speculation and spending beyond our means; on bad credit and inflated home prices and over leveraged banks.” He also said, “Such activity isn’t the creation of lasting wealth. It’s the illusion of prosperity, and it hurts us all in the end.” Which is, of course, why his spending plan calls for the US government to borrow heavily so that the government can spend beyond its means and create the illusion as economic growth.

However, is government action the correct answer to a market crisis (in this case a crisis precipitated by the financial markets)? Is the answer to regulate the market until it, supposedly, cannot fluctuate so drastically? Or is the answer to allow the fluctuation to amputate the non-functioning segments? To allow economic Darwinism (by which I mean profitability, aka, greed) streamline the market until it flows smoothly again seems like a painful alternative to the easy way out of letting the government handle our mistakes.

As a warning against a greater degree of government intervention, I present the findings of the Cato Institute relating to the relationship between financial deregulation and financial crises. According to the study, financial deregulation in itself does not lead to financial instability, as half of the countries in the study that deregulated their financial systems experienced market instability and half did not. The findings point to the size of the country's government as the pivotal factor in whether or not the country will experience a financial crisis: the larger the government, the more likely the market will not self adjust without crisis.

What does all of this mean? It means that continued government interference and "help" is more likely to maintain economic instability rather than promote economic growth. As further evidence of this claim I put forward the theory, increasingly popular as economists study it, that the New Deal prolonged the Great Depression. Also, there is the claim that the government's intervention in the financial market increased the market drop last year. As it is, I wonder how long it will be before the people of this country remember that economic trouble means a shift in the economy as well as economic opportunity to those brave enough to take personal risks. This economy became the world's largest through risk and perseverance rather than cowardice and government control.

"You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man's age-old dream -- the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order - or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. Regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would sacrifice freedom for security have embarked on this downward path. Plutarch warned, 'The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits.' " -- Ronald Reagan, October 27, 1964

Food for Thought

While I have been lax in my postings here the world has moved quickly onward. It has moved onward, but not necessarily upward (fans of the Narnia books, you know the reference.) I have not had the time to find the subject for a complete post... so I have a question instead. Food for thought, as some would say.

Can true advocates for personal freedom and personal responsibility be found in the rank and file of formalized and institutional government? Can anyone who has the desire to work as a lawmaker and a leader of a country actually believe that the people are better off doing things on their own, without interference from the powers that be?

In partial answer to my own questions, I present the statement of the statesman Daniel Webster, "Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of power. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." Webster, himself a leader, recognized the subverting influence power has over man. It goes along with the old adage "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions." When people can sit back and abdicate personal responsibility to the promise of a being given a better life, they may in the end be given the "better life," but is it actually theirs? Does a man possess that which is not earned or does the man become the servant of those who can provide for him?

Finally, the last little bit to think over is another quotation from one of the great men who shaped the United States, Samuel Adams. All I ask is that people read this and think about what the ideals this country was founded upon mean for us today: "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."

The Economy of Coercion

John Stossel's latest column at Town Hall echoes some of my latest reading material. Stossel makes his point far more eloquently than I would, but it won't prevent me from trying to expand on what he wrote. Von Hayek wrote about why government cannot run an economy better than the Invisible Hand made famous by Adam Smith. A government run economy depends on experts in their field to plan the best route for production and, through that, the best route for consumption. The major flaw with this is that experts have a very narrow scope of vision, primarily the field in which they have studied. What happens then is they all vie for the important aspects of their division to be paramount while not being able to comprehend the total interaction of all aspects of the economy.

If the experts can't put it all together, how can the average citizen, you ask? Simple, the average citizen merely has to concentrate on that which is pertinent to his or her life. When you have an entire populace looking out for number One, the invisible hand appears. Market forces shape the flow of commodities by making the most used products and industries buy more and industries and products that aren't economical fall off the map or become a specialty and niche market. It makes for a very fluid and sometimes unpredictable economy. However, it also creates something of a market Darwinism, an evolution of production. Those companies that are useful and have a working business model profit and continue be useful in the economy; those that lack those things fail and remove the excess fat and chaff from the market.

Yes, a free market makes uncertainty a part of life, but it also drives innovation and development. The liberal ideas that sparked the explosive growth of the past three- hundred years still work but they also mean that we must be able to understand that sometimes things must change to continue that growth. This brings me to my next point: What will happen if we bail out the Detroit automakers? What happens when we artificially prop up failed business models? In the short run, a bail out may allow the companies to free up and divert capitol to projects that make them more competitive. Or it might give them the illusion of a cushion against the current push of the markets and make them even more sluggish in response to changing consumer needs, merely prolonging the death throws of a dieing business model which other companies have already left behind (including the continued leaching by the UAW.) The biggest hurdle the American automakers face in becoming competitive is the cost difference in production compared to their foreign brethren. GM has hourly labor costs (including benefits) of $78 per hour, while Toyota has a mere $35 per cost. At half the cost of labor, the non-union model is more streamlined and can cut consumer cost further. Add to this the perception that Toyota has higher quality cars and you get a compelling reason to cut the chaff that is GM from the economy.

The above is one example where a free market would cause fluctuation and uncertainty, but the economy would come out stronger. What worries me the most about the auto bailout currently proposed would pave the way for nationalization of the auto industry. If the government already owns a portion of the company, how big of a step would it be to buy the rest of it in the name of helping direct the company to more effectively aid the economy? Why does nationalization worry me? If my opening paragraph doesn't paint a clear enough picture, let us examine what happens to any industry when it gets taken over. First, it is important to note that most countries that at one time nationalized various industries re-privatized them later. It seems that the main effect of nationalization is to remove the incentive to innovate: profit for the individual (or group of investors.) Without that drive to innovate the economy stagnates and flounders, see the example of the "progress" experienced by the ultimate example of state control, the Soviet Union. The USSR did increase production under state control with a mandated shift away from agriculture to industry, but it also increased the cost of such development (including the human cost of producing less food,) resulting in the lowering of the standard of living. I suppose that is one way of achieving equality, and perhaps the only way. To make everyone equal you must bring everyone to a common denominator, usually down.

Freedom

I recently began reading von Hayek's The Road to Serfdom and, while I have yet to finish it and therefore cannot give an analysis or review, it started me thinking. What is freedom?
Freedom would seem like it is a very simple concept. Yet, even when you look up the definition, it gets complicated quickly. In a political sense does freedom mean merely an absence of confinement or does it mean the ability to choose one's actions, thoughts, and words? The Declaration of Independence is often thought of when somebody asks about documents of freedom, but it actually never uses the word and only has the word "free" twice. Once in saying "A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people." and once describing the colonies as "Free and Independent States." This tells me that the writers of the Declaration already had a concrete idea of what Freedom means.

"Under the law of nature, all men are born free, every one comes into the world with a right to his own person, which includes the liberty of moving and using it at his own will. This is what is called personal liberty, and is given him by the Author of nature, because necessary for his own sustenance." --Thomas Jefferson: Legal Argument, 1770.
"Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."--Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1819.

When you put those two comments together, you get the image that the word freedom meant the right to live your life as you see fit and to have no one but you responsible for how it turns out. The only restrictions that can morally be placed on your individual freedom is when your actions abridge the liberty and freedom of another individual.

What does this say about government's role in the life of the people? What does it mean when the government is called to care for the "general welfare" of society? Does it mean that government must help the less fortunate members of society or does it mean that government is only there to prevent those who would take advantage of the less fortunate of society from doing so? If government chooses to support the poorer people is that an abridgement of the poor's right to living their own life and their duty as free people to take responsibility for themselves?

A well done speech...

As I've said before, I am not a scholar of American politics but some events warrant comment.

Overall, I found the speech given last night to be very well done, hopeful, and humble. But President-elect Barack Obama said a few things that make me wonder how his vision will color his leadership. He said that he will be not only a president for those who voted for him, but attentive to the concerns of those who oppose him. A very hopeful sign for a president trying to unite a country. If he can stay away from the non-centrist record tailing along behind him, he can be a leader for all of this fine country.

However, one or two sections from the speech caught my attention.

This victory alone is not the change we seek. It is only the chance for us to make that change. And that cannot happen if we go back to the way things were.

It can't happen without you, without a new spirit of service, a new spirit of sacrifice.

So let us summon a new spirit of patriotism, of responsibility, where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves but each other.

I have no problem with the idea of renewing the old American sense of helping our neighbor. It is something required of us as Christians. However, a government pushed sense of duty and sacrifice is a common thread among states that become more than the people wished. And worse. With our Constitution and the strength of our people, I don't see us slipped into that dark pool. That being said, what if our leaders consider the Constitution out of touch and out-dated? What if they decide that the ideals that shaped our founders are not applicable to the situation of today?

That's the true genius of America: that America can change. Our union can be perfected. What we've already achieved gives us hope for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.

He has said before that our paradigm is flawed, this only reinforces my fear that the standard by which our laws and dreams are judges will become warped with time, even more than time has already done to the proud writings handed down to us to help guide our country when it needs the advice required to maintain our "more perfect union." Not our "perfect union," but a "more perfect union." Perfection is unattainable and we should not change that which has allowed us to flex and grow.

Back to the US legal system.

It's been a little while since I posted here, so I'm starting back in with something simple: separation of Church and State.

I know, hardly a simple topic, but nothing in Constitutional Law is easy. However, I think in this case it's a little more straight forward. There is a case being brought against the U.S. Department of Defense by an atheist army soldier.

The text of the First Amendment is as follows: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

What does that mean in this case? From the article, I gather that the majority of the soldier's complaint stems from his treatment by other soldiers rather than from formal actions of the military. If that is the case, I can't see how the case can have merit. In order to attain freedom of religion, the military can't keep anyone from practicing their religion, right? What if part of that religion involves the belief that one must evangelize? In that case, to prevent soldiers from attempting to convert someone would be restricting freedom of religion, would it not?

However, if the military, in it's official capacity, treated Spc. Jeremy Hall any differently than any other soldier then the case does have merit. In the eyes of a bureaucracy, a soldier is just a soldier and is dealt with according to the rules set out in triplicate. Or so it should legally be.

Hardly Normal

Hardly what we would consider normal people, terrorists are in a class of insanity all to themselves. They believe that, through their extreme actions and horrendous displays of disregard for their fellow man, they can actually bring about lawful change through unlawful measures. The US military released records of al-Qaeda recruitment in Iraq of foreigners to fight for their beliefs. These documents, seized in Sinjar, remind us of how well organized international terror actually is. They also point to some hopeful signs for Iraqi development.

First, the papers have forced a revised estimate of not only where the terrorists are coming from, but also which kind of attack is perpetrated by whom. The revision of the nationalities of suicide bombers from 75% foreign to 90% is a glimmer of hope for that troubled country. Suicide bombings are probably the most effective killer in the jihad-ist's arsenal and the fact that the vast majority of those willing to perpetrate such acts are not Iraqi speaks volumes for the Iraqi peoples' commitment to the emerging government and the faith they put in its ability to improve their lives.

Second, the demographic distribution of the recruits should not be terribly surprising. A large number were students. Think about demographics here in the United States; which one is the most likely to adamantly and vocally support ideological causes? Students, being younger, less experienced, and more likely to arrogantly believe that they are the only ones able to see the "truth" and must therefore be the voice of whatever their cause is, are more prone to becoming activists the world over. They are young enough that they still search for role models, and old enough that they can be manipulated into making foolish decisions without fully considering the ramifications of their actions. In the case of Islamic terrorism, this demographic can be molded into the perfect martyr, someone who blithely believes in the twisted ideology of the terrorist network, someone who can be convinced to put their life on the line for the teachings of an extreme sect of one of the world's largest religions.

Finally, the documents point to the level of organization that the largest Islamic terrorist organization in the world really has. As the article (linked above) points out, bin-Laden was a businessman before he was a terrorist, a very successful one at that. That background, as well as a need to coordinate strategy, lends itself to a structured approach to terrorism. I believe that the papers found in Sinjar do more for our intelligence networks than merely identifying areas to keep an eye on. We already knew that areas where there is conflict centering on Islamic fanaticism are areas to watch for those same fanatics becoming terrorist leaders elsewhere, using the strategies they implemented at home. Recruitment records may also help us focus on not only where, but who and how terrorists are enlisted. Records of any organization help us to understand how it works, and if al-Qaeda really does operate more like a corporation than we originally thought, that makes it that much more predictable and easy to track. Unfortunately, as we have learned with the drug cartel, it also makes it that much more effective.

My food for thought for the day, however, is a reflection on the mindset of a terrorist. The now famous saying "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" offers insight into what really drives a terrorist. Belief. No man willingly fights for a cause he does not believe is right. No amount of "focusing on the root causes" of terrorism will stop certain groups from forming. When people talk about alleviating the economic disparity or the foreign policy of western nations being the cause of the rise of terrorist cells, they ignore the fact that many terrorists (especially the leaders) are from affluent backgrounds and highly educated, many through the western university system. Most people are uncomfortable with the idea that to really stop terrorist growth, you must stop the belief that gives rise to it. To do this however, would also lead to the ability to stifle any beliefs that run contrary to what the governing authority wants you to believe. I am in no way supporting the radical thoughts that give rise to terrorism, nor am I supporting the groups themselves. I am saying that unless we as a culture change our way of thinking, there is no feasible way to end terrorism.

This essay offers an interesting and fairly accurate insight on why we are unable to end our generations plague. Many of my generation are hung up on the concept taught to most of us in government schools that we must tolerate everyone else's beliefs. What is not discussed is when it is appropriate to stop tolerating and confront a dangerous ideology, when toleration of others leads to compromising one's own beliefs because the others believe they need not tolerate your beliefs. People in our country need to remember the words of John Stuart Mill, "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling that thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

Then again, deep down I think all of us understand the idea of dieing for a cause.