Congressman Neil Abercrombie Misses Many Points-Response to His Piece 'Considering Iraq'

article top

“ORENDT-Cir-Flg Image”

Government is the agency that holds a monopoly on the legal use of physical force. In a free society the government uses force only in retaliation, against those who start its use. This involves three main functions: the police; the military; and the courts (which provide the means of resolving disputes peacefully, according to objective rules).


From this we can conclude that we are justified in responding to aggression even if we are not the victims of it. It may be debatable that Saddam has initiated force against the USA. However, there is no doubt that he initiates force against his own people and Israel.

The following refers to Natural Law, which I will attempt to summarize.

Albert is walking down a lonely road and decides to take a rest. He lays down under some bushes a little ways from the road and rests.

Then Mallory approaches from the east and Bob from the west and intersect near Albert. Albert can observe Mallory and Bob, however Albert remains unobserved by both Bob and Mallory. Mallory attempts to rob Bob. Bob resists. At this point there is a split into two scenarios.

*1. Mallory gains the upper hand in the struggle and kills Bob and then robs him.

*2. Bob gains the upper hand and kills Mallory.

Later, Albert meets either Bob or Mallory in town. Should Albert fear Mallory? Natural law states the intuitive answer is yes. Should Albert fear Bob? Natural law states the intuitive answer is no.

This illustration applies independent of any government or even the existence of government. In fact it applies to a caveman society. It illustrates the inalienable right to life and consequentially property.

Not all cultures are equal

Despite what you might hear from the left wing or the National Education Association (NEA). Western (“white”) cultures are markedly superior to Third World cultures. This has nothing to do with how the people dress, or the kinds of fine and performing arts they create. It has everything to do with Natural Law, the unwritten laws that govern all human behavior.

Natural Law is a universal set of principles that governs all human behavior: Our effectiveness is predicated upon certain inviolate principles, natural laws in the human dimension that are just as real, just as unchanging, as laws such as gravity are in the physical dimension. These principles are woven into the fabric of every civilized society and constitute the roots of every family and institution that has endured and prospered.

Principles are not invented by us or by society; they are the laws of the universe that pertain to human relationships and human organizations. They are part of the human condition, consciousness, and conscience.

The lesson of history is that to the degree people and civilizations have operated in harmony with correct principles, they have prospered. At the root of societal declines are foolish practices that represent violations of correct principles. How many economic disasters, intercultural conflicts, political revolutions, and civil wars could have been avoided had there been greater social commitment to correct principles? (Stephen Covey, Principle-Centered Leadership, 1991, 18-19)

The Declaration of Independence applies Natural Law to human rights: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution, which are the ultimate foundation of our country’s laws, rests on Natural Law. The Bill of Rights includes:

Freedom of nonviolent expression (freedom of speech)

Freedom of religion (as opposed to putting Christian missionaries on trial for their lives as the Taliban did, or prescribing execution for converts as is done in Saudi Arabia and the Sudan)

The right to keep and bear arms for defense of family, self, and country

Freedom from unreasonable (without a warrant or probable cause) search

The right to not give evidence against oneself

The right to trial by a jury of one’s peers (as opposed to a king, or a religious Sharia court)

Freedom from cruel and unusual punishments (like amputation of limbs, stoning, and crucifixion, all of which are practiced in the Arab world)

Freedom from involuntary servitude (slavery, which is still practiced in the Arab world, e.g. in the Sudan)

Natural Law is so important that Asian Indians deify it as Dharma, “The Right Way.” It’s Tao (the Way) to Chinese, and Do (same as Tao) in Japan. China, a Third World dictatorship, is ruled by tyrants as opposed to Taoists or Confucian scholars. Hindus say that Dharma protects those who uphold it and destroys those who go against it. In fact, the definition of Natural Law allows an objective definition of good and evil. Whatever supports and upholds Natural Law is good, whatever goes against it is evil.

Any culture that upholds Natural Law and protects natural human rights to life, liberty, and property can be considered (to use Kipling’s term) “white” no matter what the actual race of that culture’s practitioner happens to be. Any culture that defies Natural Law and undermines natural human rights is dysfunctional, inferior, and ”’evil.”’

“Dictatorship nations are outlaws. Any free nation had the ”’right”’ to invade Nazi Germany and, today, has the ”’right”’ to invade Soviet Russia, Cuba or any other slave pen. Whether a free nation chooses to do so or not is a matter of its own self-interest, ”’not”’ of respect for the nonexistent ‘rights’ of gang rulers.” — Ayn Rand [written before the collapse of the Soviet Union]

It is the moral right (if not the duty, since putting this into practice requires soldiers to risk their lives) of Western Civilization to destroy and replace any evil culture it encounters, i.e. any culture that goes against Natural Law. This does not mean that the culture’s practitioners (at least not the common people) should be harmed. They are victims of the evil culture. In 2001, for example, Afghans pointed out quite rightly that most of them were not terrorists. They were instead concentration camp inmates, and the Taliban were the guards. Examples:

Destruction of the Mainland Chinese government would give ordinary Chinese their natural human rights to worship (or not) as they choose, to express themselves nonviolently without the risk of being massacred as they were in Tiananmen Square, and freedom from compulsory abortions.

Deposing or destroying the Saudi Royal Family would emancipate half the country’s population (the women) and give every ordinary Saudi his or her natural human right of freedom of religion. It also would free every ordinary Saudi from the whims and caprices of religious Sharia courts, and replace these with rule of law.

Overthrowing the Sudan’s government would eliminate slavery of Black Christians, as well as religious persecutions.

Deposing Saddam Hussein would benefit 90 percent (or more) of the Iraqi people.

The logic of the above argument looks rock solid to me. However, I may have missed something.

Did I?

”’To see Congressman Neil Abercrombie’s original article, see:”’ “Considering Iraq”

“John Orendt Bio Sidebar”