Home » One of Victor Davis Hanson’s best: on lawlessness

Comments

One of Victor Davis Hanson’s best: on lawlessness — 14 Comments

  1. Of course, if the evil alliance’s goal is totalitarian control, then the means that get there, is just the bonus and the required means to get the goal. It cannot be sacrificed for the goal itself.

  2. VDH: “Nor can a government maintain legitimacy when it presides over lawlessness.”

    Correct. Hence, the disgusted disdain and lack-of-trust-and-faith in the government and in the Constitution.

    To attempt to win it back, or at least attempt to partially win back the faith, the Conservatives have to impeach the Lawless Tyrant Obola.

    Refusal to do so because of fear of the MSM further fuels the disdain and distrust of the government and of the GOP. Who can trust a coward?

  3. I said it yesterday, and again today “We are neither a nation of laws, nor even of men, but of perfidy.” I need only figure out how to date/time stamp the line so as to make it contemporaneous to the daily philippics against the horrid little demolisher in the White House and the desultory responses by those who claim to be upset by his lawlessness.

  4. TUaD, there’s no good outcome if the Senate will not concur. Futile gestures are worthless. Let the House nibble him to death.

  5. I thought it was one of VDH’s too when I read it earlier this week.

    And to think he wrote it within a month of his daughter’s death.

  6. VDH
    Our bureaucrats thirst for the single infraction by the law-biding citizen who can pay…

    and let the criminals run riot, others across the border, and still others for public office. Each in turn, hold themselves up as paragons of great expectations unmet, high aspirations to be awarded, and professional pain feelers i.e., sinecurists who take kinky pleasure at cocking a snook at the law-abiding, the producers, the squares. When confronted, opposed, each responds with threats and ultimatums that work like charms.

    The late, great, Sam Francis had made of all this, operational ‘anarcho-tyranny’. We are now well into it as SOP in our daily lives.

    And the Sunday morning blather will lead with the top contenders for 2016. The truly great thing about democracy, the greatest, is that the electorate, the morons, having elected their betters, the idiots, have no-one to pass the buck to. Thank you for voting.

  7. Boston radio guy Howie Carr has a neat retort should he get apprehended with expired license, or non inspection, or
    Iinsurance less, “officer treat me like an illegal alien”
    Late boston mayor , menino noted for saying, “stealing a car
    that’s not really a crime”. Uh, lets just you or me do it!

  8. ”Futile gestures are worthless “

    As was Custer’s last stand — but it lead to something. As was the gesture, in its immediacy, of the three hundred at Thermopylae — but it led to something. If the case (impeachment) makes no better a showing than a party count, what of it? It may lead to something. I don’t much care if the vote was 1 yea 97 nays and 2 abstentions — what of it? The entire point of VDH’s article gets a slap in the face if the law is not tried. Every prosecutor, nearly always, believes he has made a sturdy case, but none is ever sure of a unanimous guilty conviction. But the law demands the effort. And so too does the law requiring impeachment for malfeasance, misfeasance, misprision. For God’s sake the man took an oath; the man stated a score of times that what he is doing is unconstitutional. What is the standard for bringing a case? He’s Adolf, Joe, and Mao rolled into one? He’s the devil himself? Is a certain conviction the measure? I think VDH would disagree.

  9. What VDH describes in his home turf around Fresno, California is typical of all banana republics I have experienced. Right now we have localized banana republic activity. As the progs continue to tear down the rule of law, it spreads more each year.

    Can it be stopped? I am reminded of the turn-around in New York City. Before Giuliani became mayor the place was a sinkhole of criminal activity typical of a banana republic. One man turned that around. It wasn’t easy and without vigilance it never lasts. But it can be done. Keep fighting for candidates who believe in the rule of law.

  10. “More disturbingly, we have engendered a strange culture of justifiable lawlessness: those who are deemed exploited in some ways are exempt from following the law; those without such victim status are subject even more to it….”

    By design.
    This perfectly describes their precious “Social Justice.”

  11. “Has a U.S. president ever so frequently and fervently warned the country about the likes of himself?”

    Amen, VDH. Amen.

    At his publicized sit-down with Holder, Tawana Sharpton and slathering newsies, he said that(in the wake of Ferguson and its meaning on police/black relations)this was going to be different because(Focus closely,’Yo!!)HE IS GOING TO GET INVOLVED. Uummmmm…
    6-years into his astonishingly divisive, incompetent administration and NOW he’s gonna get involved in racial stuff??!!!!!!!

    Memo to Jimmah Cawtah: Next to this loathsome twit, you might just deserve Rushmore. Happy, Happy, Relieved Jimmah!!

  12. What VDH is referring to is the broken window theory which states criminal behavior both small and large is still criminal behavior and if law enforcement focused on rooting out the petty crimes it would be a ripple effect to the larger ones as well.
    He’s correct they didn’t just cross the border they had to engage in more and more criminal activity to stay and while these may be “petty” crimes if left unchecked and rewarded may lead to larger more harmful law breaking.
    It seems such common sense stuff, yet DC is a product of this very theory. They allow themselves to be swayed or bought by one interest group or another and the chain reaction of events snow balls from there.
    It’s the same with the laws they write. First they write a flawed law and then write a law to fix the flaw and so on and so on.
    There exists in Washington and the illegal immigrant world an entire class of lawlessness and we are expected to just ignore it all.

  13. For a modern liberal, the notion of freedom is best represented by a social smorgasbord of self-actualization opportunities, and not as freedom from social compulsion.

    That constitutional stuff is for old style organisms which insist on boundaries, and demand definitions as the predicate for community life.

    For the modern liberal, the exigencies of natural life, of dealing with nature, are just as odious as the political dictate of the other. Marx made that perspective clear enough. “Peace be upon on the primeval forest” he sarcastically declared, in implying that that kind of freedom was no freedom at all.

    As the modern liberal’s fundamental ontology is both evolutionary, and nominalistic, the reductively sui generis but continually arising “liberal” novelties (i.e., the liberal persons and their tastes), require continual social adjustments on the part of those others already inhabiting the social environment which the liberal wishes to access. This unrestricted and unconditional access is necessary in order for the liberal to realize its particular desires for physical and emotional satisfaction and esteem.

    Since there are on the modern liberal’s core worldview no natural kinds much less proper types, and no objective standards by which to evaluate anything, the suggestion that associative difficulties might be sometimes traceable to the liberal’s behaviors, are taken as an insult to the very being of the organism we call, or calls itself, “liberal”. Standards ostensibly based on objective norms or types, are ruled out of court in favor of a politico-evolutionary template in which the liberal novelty – immune from judgment or even analysis – must be not only accommodated, but enabled and underwritten on its own terms.

    This is why they cannot stop with mere indifferent tolerance, but require your affirmation. And the esteem of others, as Rawls noted, is very much a critical element of the modern liberal’s needs. To resist or withhold, is to deprive them of a resource and comfort necessary to their self-actualizing project: which per stipulation, requires your participation – or at least contribution.

    What is mere law, in comparison with that?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>