Posted August 14, 2002

Government Services

A question for Mr. Hardesty ["Constitution of No Authority," Backtalk, August 9]:

If you are, in fact, using the government services funded by tax money, how can you call tax money theft? It is part of the contract government has with its constituents -- money in exchange for services. Perhaps you disagree with how these services are administered, but you are always welcome to change them through the legitimate means people use to get rid of policies they don't like. Of course, that requires implicitly acknowledging that the system itself is legitimate.

If you use the services of the government without paying for them, then you are the one committing theft here - unless, that is, you consign yourself to not using any of them. Any consumption of public goods, no matter how begrudging, is an acknowledgment of the social contract -- just as when you hire a plumber to fix your toilet, you implicitly agree to pay the bill after he's done. However, if you should reject the idea of the social contract itself, you are rejecting the idea of majority rule, that is, of democracy. You're welcome to come up with an improvement on democracy, then. ...

( I do believe I am allowed to read Spooner and nonetheless disagree with him.)

~ Steven Small

The Founders

DW ["Standing Army," Backtalk, August 5] is simply wrong in critiquing Justin Raimondo's correct assertion ["Attack of the Chicken Hawks"] (August 2) that the founders were wary of a standing army. That's why Congress was only given the authority to appropriate funds to raise and support and army no longer than two years. Congress was indeed given the authority to provide for and maintain a navy.

Read it yourself from Article 1, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution:

"To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress..."

Why in the world would the founders be so specific in limiting appropriations for armies to a duration of no longer than two years if they were not wary of a standing army?

~ Kyle Johnson

Wanniski on Hussein

Can you please direct me to information about Saddam Hussein's alleged killing of thousands of Kurds. I would like to know if and why he did this.

~ WH, New York

Managing editor Eric Garris replies:

It is something that is often repeated but rarely questioned. Here is a piece by conservative economist/historian Jude Wanniski on the subject:
http://supplysideinvestor.com/showarticle.asp?articleid=2001.

Invading Iraq is Wrong

Just finished reading Justin's "Hail Dick Armey!" article. I was elated to see such comments from a senior Republican. However, it seems like much too little, much too late. I have been hoping for much more pronounced and vocal opposition to Bush's further push to secure oil and democracy (let the reader pick the order). ...

What I am hoping for is more then just debate of how and when we are to attack Iraq. I want to see debate on such questions as do we have the right to attack, to install our own puppet, and by whose authority. And while we are at it, I would enjoy seeing Congress stand up to the Administration and politely remind it that they and not the President will decide if we are to wage war. Patrick J. Buchanan has pointed out that in waging war the US is starting to resemble Rome's transition from Republic to Empire, where authority has been slowly slipping from the Senate to Caesar.

Currently, even many of those opposed to war with Iraq seem to be quibbling more about the details than the morality of such an adventure. Many worry about who will replace Saddam, will Iran take advantage of Iraq's internal strife (which is fair, in that Saddam did the same thing during Iran's last transition), how will Israel be affected (gee how about Cameroon?). Little voice is given to the morality of such an action.

Invading Iraq is wrong! It is not wrong because we can't foresee the outcome or how the region may be affected or whatever. It is simply wrong meaning immoral. Hitler's generals could argue that Stalingrad was wrong, sure they didn't win, they should have taken this or that action. McNamara recently wrote about the war in Vietnam as being wrong, we didn't do the right things, we didn't have the full support of the American people, we didn't pursue the war vigorously enough. Yes, it was wrong to him because we lost, not because we should have not been there in the first place. ...

~ Jim Vinsel

Egypt

Laurent Murawiec appears to be trying to restore the British Empire, or have a new Anglo-American Empire take it's place (ironic, considering that he is a former LaRouche disciple). As a student of history like yourself knows, Egypt was the fulcrum of the British Empire; India and Hong Kong would have been much harder to control without the control of the Suez Canal. ...

~ David N., California

Spike Jones

The puzzling reference to the "mythical horse race" and "Beetlebaum" (sic) comes from an old Spike Jones musical novelty number about a horse race, where one of the horses is named "Beetle Bomb" after a bug spray of the time (1940s? Early 1950s?) that had some particularly irritating three-note jingle theme that burrowed into your mind and wouldn't leave. The two syllables of "Beetle" were on the same pitch, but then "Bomb" dropped into an abyss, and the sepulchrally-voiced singer made the rendition even more peculiar and odd. I heard the song once on an old-time radio show in Chicago while driving around doing errands. "Beetle Bomb" was always in the rear of the pack of the race horses, far in the rear, so it would seem; thus, I suppose LaRouche is trying to convey that Murawiec is a "real loser." Of course, such a reference only betrays LaRouche's advanced age, for how many contemporary readers would be able to place it? But that's characteristic of such megalomaniacs as LaRouche, who can't be bothered with trying to make themselves understood to the people that they are purportedly trying to reach.

~ Mark S.

Carthage

I don't think that history necessarily repeats itself, but I do think primary themes are recycled in a spiral that adds dimensions not seen before. That being said, I can't help but be reminded of parallels between our government's chosen course of retribution/annihilation against Iraq, and that of ancient Rome and its chief rival in the Mediterranean world, Carthage.

Located in North Africa, Carthage was a continual thorn in Rome's side -- economically competitive and militarily threatening, but far enough away to make it difficult to mount a full-scale siege to put either side out of business.

The two empires fought two inconclusive wars. Then a genius/madman general of the Carthaginians pulled off an incredible feat. Most people are familiar with Hannibal's attack on the Italian peninsula, taking elephants over the Alps and actually wreaking havoc on much of the Roman heartland. He'd counted on the Italian states rising up against the Romans and joining him, but they'd become comfortable enough calling themselves Roman, too, not to take their chances with a bunch of wild men.

Hannibal fought the good fight until finally forced to flee by boat off the boot's tip and back to his homeland.

It really pissed the Romans off. This insult was the last straw. Rome sent its overwhelming might overseas to inflict the final solution. They not only conquered Carthage, they obliterated the culture from the face of the earth. Everyone they could find was killed, the city flattened, and salt spread over the site so nothing would ever grow there again.

Now, odd as it seems, it didn't make Romans happy. There were celebrations of the "great" victory on the Legions' return, certainly, but literature from that point on resounds with the theme of their having gone too far in getting their revenge. As strange as it may sound, the guilt of having done something they all knew was wrong at the time soured everything that was "Rome" from that moment forward.

Now, Rome's fall had many causes and took, still, hundreds of years to occur. But the continual degradation of life in Rome is unmistakable, and the Dark Ages were what followed.

In today's accelerated pace of living, who can say how long it will be until we have our own "Little Boot" (Caligula)?

~ John McGill, East Glacier Park, Montana

Previous Backtalk