December 24, 2001
From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:In which MTZ is sucked, somewhat reluctantly, into an intentionally provocative debate
Fredrik Norman, provoking controversy, wrote the following:
Does Welfare Equal Terrorism? I'd answer that with a resounding yes.I spent part of the wee hours a few nights ago responding on his site in the negative. Unfortunately that's lost now after the great Kristiansand Server-Freeze. So let me try again.
I agree that government redistribution of wealth is coercion and a substantial reduction in individual liberty. I think Fredrik and I would also agree that there are millions of lost souls who have forgotten that this country was built on a foundation that prohibited coercion by individuals (the rule of law) and limited coercion by government (the Constitution). Liberalism was founded on the ideal of "freedom from" coercion, not the statist or communitarian entitlement ideals of those who wear the "Liberal" label today. The Utopia we should be striving for is the one where individuals are free from any obligation that today's government may force on us. We could argue whether the sacrifices forced on us by government are necessary, but we should agree that ideally they would not exist. We would be free to finance neither redistribution nor Daisy Cutters, if we so chose.
Most of my trouble comes from the label "Terrorism". It shouldn't mean anything that involves coercion, as that dilutes the term. We reserve a special label for this purposeless violence. The best definition I can provide is "violence, purely for the sake of fear and intimidation but under the pretense of a dispute, intentionally made on a party unconnected to that dispute." A state and its citizens are inextricably involved. In fact, an oppressive state is in a direct dispute with its citizens. So it is difficult to accuse a state of Terrorism per se. But that doesn't mean the state may not be brutal, genocidal, oppressive or thuggish, all of which we also associate with Terrorism.
Democracy also makes a difference. We may have no choice but to have our wealth redistributed, but we can try to vote the bums out. The folks in the WTC had no connection whatsoever, let alone a chance to object, to Al Qaeda's concerns. Which is what makes them a party "irrelevant to the dispute."
It is tempting to extend the definition of Terrorism to any form of coercion to perform something we find abhorrent. But then the only thing that differentiates terrorism from a "legitimate" use of force is the judgement we pass on its aims. It becomes the Justice Stewart definition of Terrorism - "I can't define it, but I know it when it happens to me," if you will.
I concede Fredrik's point about "matters of degree". To some extent I am making an argument that serves our aims of coalition-building in a war against Terrorism rather than strictly on the logic of freedom limited by force. But I think it is legitimate to have a special name for a particularly abhorrent and unusual (thank goodness) form of violence or coercion, as much as it is legitimate to have a special and violent effort to combat it. We would not make military war on the proponents of an expanding but democratice Welfare State, even though they attack and hinder growth and opportunity for the little guy while hypocritically using him as a symbol of their cause.
Posted by Mindles H. Dreck at December 24, 2001 12:36 AM | Technorati inbound links