Abu Hatem أبو حاتم

At about the 19th century, many people quit believing in natural law and inalienable natural rights from God.  That the origin of freedom, and the right to life and property came from God was the backbone of the classical liberals from Locke to Jefferson.  The Declaration of Independence, perhaps the founding document of natural rights classical liberalism, is an illustration of this fact.  Rights are not from governments, they are from God, they are inalienable.  You have a right to your life and property not due to the government’s mercy but because of God’s mercy, and thus one cannot take away that right.

This was the Pope’s message to the United Nations last week, that we must realize that the origin of all human rights is from God.  This was indeed the origin of classical liberal thinking.  The first capitalists and democrats were deeply religious people who believed that natural law only justified a market and the rule of law, as well as religious toleration.

In Islam we do find some mirrors of this thinking.  In the tenth century, al-Maturidi wrote that human reason could find a “natural law” of the universe - that God created man, that man had a right to the fruit of his labor and stealing was wrong, and that God loaned man his body and thus it was impermissible to kill.  Ibn al-Qayyim, Averroes, al-Shatibi, and many others followed in this tradition, while others maintained all rights are only knowable through revealed law of revelation and thus peoples in remote areas were simply not accountable to the “natural law.”

The Pope’s message that the origin of rights is with God is not a novel one.  As the Pope said it is perhaps the most classical conception of rights, stemming from Augustine of Hippo and others, even back to the time of the Old Testament Prophets.  However, there is a notion today that “freedom” does not come from God, that it is not a natural right.  The reason for this is that in the 19th century, people lost faith in the natural law, and attempted to form some sort of defense of human rights.  If they did not come from God, then where did they come from?

Jeremy Bentham and the Benthamite party in the British parliament attempted to fill this gap.  According to him, and his followers the abominable John Stuart Mill and others, the defense of rights come in giving “the most pleasure to the most number,” or utilitarianism.  The defense of rights in human pleasure and passion, instead of God, was the first problem.  Now, instead of freedom being rooted in God and being limited by natural rights - such as to life and property - freedom was rooted in the consequentialist notion of “I do everything I want as long as I don’t limit you from doing everything you want.”  What a perversion.

The Pope’s words, in this case, deserve to be heeded.  John Burgess, the founder of American positivist political science, claimed that rights came from the state and that liberal democracy was the best government.  Such thought is dangerous.

Clarence Thomas, when he was appointed as Supreme Court Justice, was ridiculed for stating that he believed in a natural law.  As a devout Catholic, he held the notion throughout his adult life.  Congressmen, Senators, and the media flooded him with derision questioning how he could believe in such an outdated concept.  Thomas replied that you had better hope there is a natural or revealed law, or then all morality and law would just be man-made manifestations of human passions.

This has been unfortunately the main question of political thought for the past decade.  All of those who have replaced natural law have really found nothing to replace it with.  Eric Voegelin noticed this and wrote that because of this relatavism people were creating their own secular political religions and authoritarian cults and creating immense evil.  Voegelin taught Pope Benedict, and I think the Pope understands the dangers of the dictatorship by relativism all too well.

When we return to a notion of natural law and of natural rights, from God, which all of us - Muslims, or even Jew and Christian, we can prevent much of this.  The origin of rights are with God.  Thomas Jefferson understood this well, as did James Madison and Alexander Hamilton.  A cursory glance over the Federalist Papers will find this fact repeated once and again.

Ibn Khaldun writes that the decline of all dynasties comes when the rights of others are not respected, when injustice occurs then civilization is brought to ruin.

Pope John Paul II, when he visited in the United States, said that the ultimate danger for freedom and democracy is an incorrect perception of freedom.  Our perception of freedom is now perverted to “doing whatever I want,” and “your morals are yours, and mine are mine,” as if there are no universal moral axioms.  The classical Christian notion of freedom, John Paul said, was obedience and love of God through obedience to natural law.

There should be freedom of religion and religious toleration, and we can differ on some moral judgments.  For instance a Muslim may find pork immoral while a Christian may find it moral.  Yet, vices differ from crimes or from transgressions upon the natural rights of others.  On the rights of others (in Islamic terms - huquq al-’ibad) we cannot be relativist.  Everyone has a right to life and human dignity, period.

The consequentialist utilitarian revolution in defending rights has been nothing but a cause for injustice.

Share This

It looks like Raul Castro is going the way of China. Socialism does not work, and instead of continuing to oppress his people, Raul is opening up some markets. First cellphones were okay, then foreign hotels were permissible to stay in, and now DVD players are allowed and some private land-rights legislation is opening up. Finally.

The land initiative, however, potentially could put more food on the table of all Cubans and bring in hard currency from exports of tobacco, coffee and other products, providing the cash inflows needed to spur a new consumer economy.

Government television said 51 percent of arable land is underused or fallow, and officials are transferring some of it to individual farmers and associations representing small, private producers. According to official figures, cooperatives already control 35 percent of arable land — and produce 60 percent of the island’s agricultural output.

“Everyone who wants to produce tobacco will be given land to produce tobacco, and it will be the same with coffee,” said Orlando Lugo, president of Cuba’s national farmers association.

China went in perhaps the greatest leap from slavery to liberty of all time when it rapidly transformed its command economy to a market economy right before the demise of the Soviet Union. Look at China now, instead of poverty there is wealth creation and free trade with others.

The Bush administration should abandon the failed embargo on Cuba. Trading with Cuba is not going to help socialism or totalitarianism. On the contrary, trade with Cuba will increase U.S.-Cuba ties and bring millions out of poverty. The implications such as move have on peace and freedom are remarkable.

The most peaceful solution is usually the best. China is doing some horrible atrocities right now, there is no doubt, but Taiwan’s election of a pro-China unification candidate is promising. When tensions decrease and trade increases then peace is a result.

Every socialist regime that has ever been created, all of which were pure socialism and followed some manifestation of the Marxist atheist historicism fantasy, failed. Why? The impossibility of economic calculation under socialism to quote Ludwig von Mises, or the bounded rationality of human beings to quote Herbert Simon and Friedrich Hayek. It is impossible to centrally plan an economy. China has learned this the hard way, the Soviet Union self-destructed, and Cuba and North Korea just simply cannot go on. Setting aside all of the moral arguments against socialism, and all of the political consequences of socialism, and that prosperity under socialism being inexistent, and the oppression entailed under socialism, there is one main point why none should truly fear socialism. Socialism is truly impossible. It can only exist for so long (while peaking at the prices in free-market countries I might add) before it dies out. Look at Syria now which can barely afford the subsidies and is making market economy reforms before its entire economy collapses.

Literally every single example that history has shown us of a socialist country has collapsed. And apodidic logical reasoning makes it self-evident that this is the case. Both reason and experience confirm this. Ibn Khaldun wrote of how injustice or disrespect of property rights (of which socialism is simply a manifestation) leads to civilizational decline as far back as 1400 A.D. Thus in the long run, there is no need for war or embargoes or furthering people’s problems. Trade breeds cooperation and peace. As we see now Cuba and Syria - two of the last few countries in the world which are truly socialist - are reforming at a rapid pace to save themselves. China and Vietnam have already reformed before it was too late. And the Soviet Union collapsed. The only country left - that of North Korea - is in a horrid state currently.

It is actually quite ironic and funny that Marx’s evil theory turned out to be the opposite. Instead of market economies burning out and becoming socialist creating a world socialist command economy, all of the socialist economies have burned out and become market economies. Instead of world socialism, we have more market economies today than in any other period in history. And instead of market economies creating poverty, we have higher standards of living now worldwide (including Africa) than ever before in world history and free-trade amongst peoples is increasing peace and prosperity worldwide while religious beliefs continue to exist and provide strength to civilizations and societies. The Satanic force that is Marxism is now rotting in the trash heap of history, as the Satanic Marx gets his just deserts in his dark narrow grave.

People who support embargoes on the innocent people of Cuba are simply impeding their progress in economic reform. Indeed, embargoes, like socialism, are impediments on economic freedom and property rights. Many have pointed out rightly that you cannot truly be a free-trader and believe in embargoes or sanctions, which even according to the greatest hawk in our government - Dick Cheney - do not work (Cheney refused to vote for sanctions against South Africa in the Congress in the 1980s for this very reason).

So instead of marginalizing Castro, it would do well for the foreign policy of the world to abandon the failed policy of the embargo. Indeed, Castro was in power for 50 years and left voluntarily. It is laughable farce that the embargo succeeded.

Share This

There are a lot of cliches these days.  People echo the oft-repeated mantra to “get out the vote,” and to vote, even for something bad, is better than not voting at all.  Setting aside that this skewed view of the world truly lacks reason, it is sufficient to note that one of the greatest political philosophers Edmund Burke regarded high levels of voter participation as something sickly in democracy because of over politicizing culture and creating fragmentation, division and sedition.  And when you are voting just to vote it is especially sickly especially because you could be the direct cause of evil later on.  If you are going to vote, then vote with purpose, lesser of two evils (negative utilitarianism) or a third-party candidate that truly shares your ideology on spreading the good.  And if you are not going to vote, then no problem, just don’t vote with purpose - to not support any bad candidates.  Many people consciously and morally do not vote for this reason.

But anyhow, the lesser evil from where I see it at the current moment is Barack Obama - of all the mainstream candidates at least.  Who wants to go back to the dishonest, lying, cheating Clintons?  To top off their warmongering, they are big-government tax-hikers.  Then we have McCain an uber-warmongering liberal Republican.  I can’t say I am a fan of either.  Barack Obama seems more honest and more sincere, and is a warmonger but less-so than McCain and the Clintons.  And the biggest of all big government programs is war, something that is the first priority to stop.  I am all for small and limited government, so many of Obama’s positions are anathema to me, but the priority is ending the war in any way possible (which Barack still won’t, but at least he may not start new ones).  Many anti-war conservatives feel the same way, such as Andrew Bajaveich and others, who have made “the conservative case for Obama.”

An Obama presidency would probably be much like the Reagan one - changing the trajectory of America through charismatic leadership.  This could potentially move the country to the European socialized left, however Obama could simply be another Bill Clinton who moves his party to the center.  It is anyone’s guess, but a McCain presidency will move the Republican party to the left into the abyss of social liberalism and big government.   Remember that every President since Reagan has been in his shadow, a fact that political scientists specializing in presidential elections such as James Caesar have noted.

I did some research on Senator Obama and here is what I found.  In his last year as Illinois State Senator, Obama sponsored the following bills:

•  An extension of the Earned Income Tax Credit - a markedly conservative proposal.
• A bill requiring audio recording of suspects arrested and interrogated by police.
• A price-control on drugs purchased through Medicare - a markedly liberal proposal.
• An extension of the socialized medicine state-SCHIP program for poor children in Illinois who earned over 200% of the federal poverty level instead of 185%.  (A very liberal proposal).
• Many ethics regulations requiring several disclosures by hospitals or other businesses to the state government.  Obama also worked on ethics legislation in the U.S. Senate.
• A bioterrorism protection act which provides for emergency protocol in the case of an attack.
• An act requiring restroom being installed on commuter trains.
• An act prohibiting the Illinois EPA from loosening certain environmental restrictions.
• A public finance bill regarding Supreme Court races.

It was surprising to see that the majority of Obama’s record, although generally Democratic and liberal, was in the mainstream.  Obama seemed to have concentrated mostly on ethics reform bills during his last year in office.  This is not really something negative, although I disagree with many of his other positions.

Obama, while in the Illinois legislature, was a board member of both Woods Fund of Chicago and the Joyce Foundation, both inner city organizing groups.  He is also less wealthy than the Clintons and McCain.  However, he is an ivy league graduate which makes him outside of the world of the average Joe.

In his U.S. Senate career, Obama has sponsored the following bills, obviously not all passed:

•  A joint resolution clarifying that the use of force against Iran is not authorized by the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq, any resolution previously adopted, or any other provision of law.
• A bill to promote the national security and stability of the economy of the United States by reducing the dependence of the United States on oil through the use of alternative fuels and new technology, and for other purposes.
• More ethics legislation including A bill to prohibit deceptive practices in Federal elections.
• A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transportation fuel sold in the United States.
• A bill to authorize State and local governments to direct divestiture from, and prevent investment in, companies with investments of $20,000,000 or more in Iran’s energy sector, and for other purposes.

Obama’s sponsored bills include a lot of ethics legislation again.  However, his bill preventing investing in Iran is reckless and anti-peace.  Obama obviously sponsored this to be seen as tough on defense.

Obama’s general voting record is the democratic line.  The National Journal, a non-partisan institute, found him as the most liberal member of the United States Senate - surpassing independent socialist (literally, he’s a socialist, yuck!) Bernie Sanders.  He has voted with his party 96.7% of the time according to the Washington Post.  Hillary Clinton has voted with her party 97.2% of the time, a little bit higher.

Obama voted against his party on vote 181 funding the Iraq war, to remove 100 million dollars of funding for the Democratic and Republican conventions, in establishing a Senate office of “public integrity,” in voting for the Oman free-trade act (a pleasant surprise!), and on confirming a conservative Republican-backed circuit court judge.

It seems that Obama is not as liberal as they make him out to be, at least not outside of the Democratic mainstream.  He has in many instances voted with Republicans against his party, yet these also are truly a drop in the bucket compared to his overall voting record.  The emphasis on ethics is impressive, yet Obama’s far-reaching liberal programs such as support of SCHIP, universal health care, tax hikes, and bailouts are scary.  Obama’s rhetoric on the campaign trail is much more liberal than his overall record which is still left of center.

Some key votes that Obama voted on were a vote against the FISA domestic spying act, a vote for the SCHIP program, a vote for the McCain-Kennedy amnesty law for illegal immigrants, the wall on the border of Mexico, and stem cell research.  Obama voted against a Free-Trade Zone in the Americas however and banning partial birth abortion.   He has a 100% rating by the pro-choice lobby NAARL and 0% by the National Right to Life Council.

For more of Barack, on the issues, then go here.

Overall, he honestly is the same old tired Democrat (or Republican) that we are all used to.  Yet he truly is the lesser evil of the candidates.  But these are some pretty bad candidates, so that is not saying much.

Share This