So, the blogosphere is getting all wound up about the Berkeley City Council's decision to try and remove the Marine Corps recruiting station from their fair city. Most are either supporting the city or disagreeing on grounds of that the city is dishonorable or hopelessly anti-military. While I think the city's decision is sad from a perspective of both patriotism and respecting other points of view, I also find it disturbing from a libertarian point of view.
First, let's go over the council votes. As far as I can tell, they contain the following items:
First, let's go over the council votes. As far as I can tell, they contain the following items:
- Resolution calling the USMC "uninvited and unwelcome guests" and advising they are not wanted in Berkeley
- Resolution to explore using anti-discrimination law to drive the USMC from Berkeley based on the US Military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy
- Resolution encouraging anti-war protest group Code Pink's efforts to impede the USMC's operations through protests. This resolution also included material support for those efforts, including a parking spot and sound permit.
The first item on the list is not a problem from a libertarian perspective. A resolution claiming a person or group is unwelcome in a city is simply speech, and speech that should be welcomed. Any time a city, like Berkeley or San Francisco, passes one of these symbolic resolution, it only serves to show the characters of the legislative bodies that pass them. The way I look at it, that's simply a value-added service for voters.
The second item on the list is problematic from a libertarian perspective, but not especially so. Governments use laws in this manner all the time. Fighting these kinds of abuses are at the core of what libertarianism is about.
The third item on the list is truly problematic. It is the role of government to defend the inherent rights of its citizens. The Berkeley City Council is actively supporting a group of protesters who seek to trample the rights of the Marine Corps Recruiting Office through harassment.
For those who argue that the USMC is not a citizen of Berkeley, and therefore does not have rights, I would say let's replace the USMC with, say, NARAL. And let's replace Berkeley with, say, Prolifeistan. Then, let's replace Code Pink with, say, Operation Rescue. Consider the following scenario:
Then, the city government came in and encouraged an activist organization to use protests and harassment to shut NARAL down and drive them from the city. In fact, they not only encouraged it, they gave material aid to the effort.
In our hypothetical example, there is a clear failure of the city government to protect the rights of both the landowner to rent to whomever he wishes and the tenant to conduct a legitimate business in the city of Prolifeistan. In addition, the city of Prolifeistan has actively abridged the right of free association for NARAL and all the other citizens of the city.
NARAL's right of free assocation has been abridged by having its premesis blockaded by the anti-abortion group, which also abridges the right of any Prolifeistan citizens who would want to associate with NARAL to do so.
Free association is one of the basic rights endowed to all people, and it is one of the cornerstone rights of a free society. Governments, at all levels, must protect the right to free association as part of their commitment to maintaining a free society.
Getting back to the real case, there is no reason to consider the USMC any differently than one would consider NARAL in our example. While the USMC is a part of the Federal Government, in this case they are acting like a commercial tenant and not employing any of the Federal Government's authority, therefore they should be considered a commercial tenant.
With that established, it is now clear that the Berkeley City Council has failed in its duty to protect the rights of the USMC, the landowner, and all of its citizens. The city's blatant disregard for the property rights of the USMC and its landlord, as well as its active abridgement of the right of free assocation for the USMC and the citizens of Berkeley places the Berkeley City Council clearly in the wrong. (Update, 12:03 PM: With support from the Berkeley City Council, Code Pink cut off access to the Marine Recruiting Station for 7 and 1/2 hours on Friday. More at Gateway Pundit.)
Now, the above analysis didn't include the fact that the actions the Berkeley City Council is encouraging and supporting are having negative impacts on other citizens of Berkeley whose only crime is not vacating their businesses when the USMC moved in, like these:
When a group of people have the power of leading a city government, they have certain responsibilities that come with that power. Those responsibilities don't include fighting for social justice or ensuring every business in their city is ideologically acceptable, as the Berkeley City Council has tried to do. Nor do they include supporting the Federal Government and the United States Military, as many on the right want them to do. Those responsibilities include protecting basic human liberties, such as the rights to life, liberty, and property, and providing a city where citizens and business have basic protections and services like police, fire, and infrastructure.
The Berkeley City Council's refusal to meet its basic responsibilities makes it a disgrace and a failure. Period.
(Update - Welcome Instapundit readers! Please look around while you're here, and if you don't own a copy of Free to Choose already, please consider buying one in the sidebar. Thanks!)
(Update - 2/12/08 - Added more commentary on tonight's city council vote.)
The second item on the list is problematic from a libertarian perspective, but not especially so. Governments use laws in this manner all the time. Fighting these kinds of abuses are at the core of what libertarianism is about.
The third item on the list is truly problematic. It is the role of government to defend the inherent rights of its citizens. The Berkeley City Council is actively supporting a group of protesters who seek to trample the rights of the Marine Corps Recruiting Office through harassment.
For those who argue that the USMC is not a citizen of Berkeley, and therefore does not have rights, I would say let's replace the USMC with, say, NARAL. And let's replace Berkeley with, say, Prolifeistan. Then, let's replace Code Pink with, say, Operation Rescue. Consider the following scenario:
The above treatment of NARAL would clearly be wrong. It would be a violation of the property rights of both NARAL, who are renting the space for their publicity office, and the landlord, who is renting to NARAL. Those two made a voluntary, mutually beneficial transaction to rent the space so NARAL could operate out of it. There was no coercion involved, no one's rights were violated.So, the blogosphere is getting all wound up about the Prolifeistan City Council's decision to try and remove the NARAL publicity office from their fair city. Most are either supporting the city or disagreeing on grounds of that the city is repressive or hopelessly anti-abortion. While I think the city's decision is sad from a perspective of both freedom to choose and respecting other points of view, I also find it disturbing from a libertarian point of view.
First, let's go over the council votes. As far as I can tell, they contain the following items:
- Resolution calling the NARAL "uninvited and unwelcome guests" and advising they are not wanted in Prolifeistan
- Resolution to explore using anti-discrimination law to drive NARAL from Prolifeistan based on NARAL's political litmus tests
- Resolution encouraging anti-abortion protest group Operation Rescue's efforts to impede the NARALS's operations through protests. This resolution also included material support for those efforts, including a parking spot and sound permit.
Then, the city government came in and encouraged an activist organization to use protests and harassment to shut NARAL down and drive them from the city. In fact, they not only encouraged it, they gave material aid to the effort.
In our hypothetical example, there is a clear failure of the city government to protect the rights of both the landowner to rent to whomever he wishes and the tenant to conduct a legitimate business in the city of Prolifeistan. In addition, the city of Prolifeistan has actively abridged the right of free association for NARAL and all the other citizens of the city.
NARAL's right of free assocation has been abridged by having its premesis blockaded by the anti-abortion group, which also abridges the right of any Prolifeistan citizens who would want to associate with NARAL to do so.
Free association is one of the basic rights endowed to all people, and it is one of the cornerstone rights of a free society. Governments, at all levels, must protect the right to free association as part of their commitment to maintaining a free society.
Getting back to the real case, there is no reason to consider the USMC any differently than one would consider NARAL in our example. While the USMC is a part of the Federal Government, in this case they are acting like a commercial tenant and not employing any of the Federal Government's authority, therefore they should be considered a commercial tenant.
With that established, it is now clear that the Berkeley City Council has failed in its duty to protect the rights of the USMC, the landowner, and all of its citizens. The city's blatant disregard for the property rights of the USMC and its landlord, as well as its active abridgement of the right of free assocation for the USMC and the citizens of Berkeley places the Berkeley City Council clearly in the wrong. (Update, 12:03 PM: With support from the Berkeley City Council, Code Pink cut off access to the Marine Recruiting Station for 7 and 1/2 hours on Friday. More at Gateway Pundit.)
Now, the above analysis didn't include the fact that the actions the Berkeley City Council is encouraging and supporting are having negative impacts on other citizens of Berkeley whose only crime is not vacating their businesses when the USMC moved in, like these:
Even though the council items passed, not everyone is happy with the work of Code Pink. Some employees and owners of businesses near the Marines office have had enough of the group and its protests.So, the Berkeley City Council is both disregarding and actively abridging the fundamental rights of its citizen and imposing negative impacts on innocent citizens all in pursuit of a political objective. Fantastic.
"My husband's business is right upstairs, and this (protesting) is bordering on harassment," Dori Schmidt told the council. "I hope this stops."
An employee of a nearby business who asked not to be identified said Wednesday the elderly Code Pink protesters are aggressive, take up parking spaces, block the sidewalk with their yoga moves, smoke in the doorways, and are noisy.
When a group of people have the power of leading a city government, they have certain responsibilities that come with that power. Those responsibilities don't include fighting for social justice or ensuring every business in their city is ideologically acceptable, as the Berkeley City Council has tried to do. Nor do they include supporting the Federal Government and the United States Military, as many on the right want them to do. Those responsibilities include protecting basic human liberties, such as the rights to life, liberty, and property, and providing a city where citizens and business have basic protections and services like police, fire, and infrastructure.
The Berkeley City Council's refusal to meet its basic responsibilities makes it a disgrace and a failure. Period.
(Update - Welcome Instapundit readers! Please look around while you're here, and if you don't own a copy of Free to Choose already, please consider buying one in the sidebar. Thanks!)
(Update - 2/12/08 - Added more commentary on tonight's city council vote.)
42 comments:
Disgrace and failure--and yet the city council will wear that as a badge of honor.
Well explained.
Did I miss something, we haven't had free association since the early 60s.
No, no, no. Don't you understand.
It's always okay/special/different when THEY do it.
That's what comes with being infallibly right all the time, about everything.
Rights, schmights.
Your analogy fails to address the fact that the Marine Corps, unlike the other entities named, fought and died to secure the freedom necessary for these cretins to take such insane actions.
Hopefully, some Marine pilot will go off his nut and solve the city hall problem with something beyond extreme prejudice.
AC - 5:44 AM
No, apparently you hallucinated something. I've notice no abridgment of my rights of free association.
Your simple assertion doesn't obviate the truth. Please back up your allegations.
Very nice analogy. I'm trying to think of a decent reply to play Devil's Advocate, but can't.
I am not much of a libertarian, or I guess of anything else, but I wonder why a city council,duly elected, does not have the right to decide as they did. The idea that marines fought and died etc gives them rights beyond all else is nonsense: ps: my son served in the marines and I have served during war. in the army.
Anon 7:31 AM
No. No one (not P&V, not commenter Bubba) is arguing for extra rights for the marines, just the same basic rights as everyone else in Berkeley. Bubba is simply pointing out the IRONY of denying basic rights to the group that defends the basic rights of all Americans.
If other cities act towards their undesireables like Berkeley did the USMC, how do you think the homeless and gays will fare?
That is the point, isn't it?
When ANY government starts denying the civil rights of ANY group, no one is safe. Especially if it is ideologically motivated.
How many Marine recruits come through Berkeley? If the answer is low the Marines would have shut down the depot long ago.
However if the answer is high, as seems likely due to the hub-bub, you have an affront to the Hippie world view. You have a visible source of rebellion and escape in the Hippie capital that has to be shouted down and confronted with giant puppets and pink tanks.
The reason that some people can't understand why the City Council is wrong has to do with a misunderstanding of our system of government and the reasons for it.
We've been fed the line that we're a democracy, when that was not how the country was set up. We are a constitutional republic. Yes, this is a democratic system of government, but it's not the same as a democracy.
In a true democracy, whatever the majority says, goes. This is essentially equivalent to "mob rule." If you can get enough people to go along with you, you can even have unpopular people executed or legally ostracized. This was what happened in democratic Greek city-states, and, in other ways, in revolutionary France.
In a constitutional republic, there are limits on what the City Council is allowed to do, regardless of how much popular support they can muster. That means that, say, the First Amendment rights of some group that differs with the majority viewpoint are protected. In Berkeley, that means the Marine Corps, despite the fact that a lot of Boomers might not understand this. In this case, the City Council is protecting those who are not just expressing their viewpoint, but rather preventing others from doing the same. This violates the principle of protecting the rights of all, not just those with popular support.
Anonymous said...
I am not much of a libertarian, or I guess of anything else, but I wonder why a city council,duly elected, does not have the right to decide as they did. The idea that marines fought and died etc gives them rights beyond all else is nonsense: ps: my son served in the marines and I have served during war. in the army.
February 3, 2008 7:31 AM
Whose side were you on?
Thank you for taking the time to make this clear analysis from the Libertarian perspective. It was worth my time to read both the item and the comment. Well done!
Though I don't exactly disagree with the conclusions, I see a problem in the analysis: the USMC is government, not private. Marines have civil rights; the Marine Corps does not. This makes the NARAL analogy especially problematic.
Came here thru InstaPundit. Your analysis is pretty good. The Berkeley city council should remain neutral with regards to the protestors. They should get involved and engage in the discussion with a symbolic resoluation. And that's all they should do.
Hey, couldn't the same RICO laws abused so heavily against anti-abortion protestors be used again here?
There has got to be a federalism issue here as well. Can localities really zone away parts of the federal government?
To add to my post above, what I mean is, isn't this Berkeley City Council idea inconsistent with McCulloch v. Maryland? That case involved a tax on the Bank of America rather than zoning, but as I understand it, the central holding is that the states cannot use their state powers to try to impede the United States Government. The Necessary and Proper clause forbids it. It seems to me that using zoning laws to impede recruiting for the U.S. Armed Forces is the same kind of unconstitutional act.
While I respect the approach this libertarian has taken, I'll have to disagree on at least a partial ground. What the argument, and many of the commentators here have NOT considered, are the 9th and 10th amendments. The Berkeley City Council has a right to assert its opinion on the subject.
While I think offering material support for any political cause above the state level is beyond the scope of any city council, I do believe it is their right to do so. It is the duty of the citizens of Berkeley to call the city council into submission, if that's what they choose to do. I doubt that the Berkeleyites will, however.
All of that aside, I do believe the property owner and tenant have a right to make their own agreement. If the Berkeley City Council wants to prevent the USMC recruiting office from renting office space within its boundaries then they need only pass a city ordinance that addresses a defensible scope and provision. Of course, it would be interesting to see how the state of California and the federal government would respond.
Oh, BTW, USMC Recruiters don't defend people's freedoms any more than the mayor of Berkeley collects household garbage.
First, welcome to everyone from Instapundit!
Second, while a few people are metioning a very legitimate federalism issue, I decided to leave that out of my analysis simply because I thought it would be more effective to show that it was wrong for the Berkeley City Council to treat anyone, including the Marines, in the manner they did.
Third, @ Roy, I would argue that the USMC and the Federal government do have limited civil rights when they are acting, as the USMC recruiting office is, as a non-coercive enterprise. For all intents and purposes, they're acting like a commercial entity, depending on voluntary transactions to function. Regardless of their association to the Federal Government, I believe they should be considered in this context.
Fourth @ anonymous 7:31 AM, the Berkeley City Council did not simply voice their displeasure with the Marines, but actually gave aid to a protest group that sought to harass them out of town. As I said, it was the latter action that is a problem. If the council had stopped with its first vote, this post would have been very, very different.
Allen Taylor said...
Oh, BTW, USMC Recruiters don't defend people's freedoms any more than the mayor of Berkeley collects household garbage.
February 3, 2008 9:57 AM
What are you talking about? USMC recruiters, just like all other recruiters, are active duty military. They do very much defend people's freedoms. While they are currently on a non-combat assignment it is just one of their tours of duty. They would have served in a combat unit prior to this and would likely return to a combat unit after being a recruiter.
I think the Berkeley city council is in open revolt against the Government of the United States.
It's a fortunate coincidence that we have US Marines there at the moment. They should do as the constitution directs, enforce martial law and imprison the rebels.
> Resolution to explore using anti-discrimination law to drive the USMC from Berkeley based on the US Military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy
What gripes me is that "don't ask, don't tell" isn't even the miltary's policy! It's the policy of congress, which passed the law, and of Pres. Clinton who signed it.
In the first two cases discussed above, the Berkely City Council is discustingly disrepectfull.
In the last case it is criminal.
Harassment is against the law. The
Council is accessory to, and aides
and abets this crime.
Code Pink demonstrators should be
arrested and charged with disturbing the peace, harassment,
disorderly conduct, incitement, and anything else which might be applicable.
Then the same should be meted out to those Councilmembers who voted
in favor of such an inaneity.
Very good post! In answer to some of your commenters, I'd argue that the problem is not whether the USMC or the feds have rights, its that the citizens who want to enter the building have them. The city council is encouraging Code Pink to break the law by denying access to citizens who want it. The link to Gatewaypundit shows this.
If the Berkley City Council can act this flagrantly outside their scope of authority, the federal government ought to teach them a lesson by removing the tax deductibility of taxes paid to the Berkley government, suspend all federal aid to Berkley and pledge never to lift a finger on behalf of Berkley should it ever suffer a natural disaster. They can call Code Pink to the rescue. In fact this should be the policy of the federal government not only towards Berkley but to any local government that acts this way(and the same for "sanctuary" cities).
Enough of these progressive (communist) clowns. Kick them in the ass then in the teeth for good measure.
Oh, BTW, USMC Recruiters don't defend people's freedoms any more than the mayor of Berkeley collects household garbage.
Poor analogy. The mayor and the recruiters do not have similar positions in their respective organizations. The mayor is an executive, not a functionary.
However, the fact is that as part of his executive duties the mayor is indeed responsible for the garbage getting collected. I know that when I'm having an issue with city services, I'm as likely to contact the mayor or city council members as I am to call up a department head.
In the US military you cannot say that it is only the troops on the front line who are defending freedom. Only a fraction of any military organization ever engages in actual combat. Without logistical support, no army can fight effectively, and I dare say the job of the parachute packer is literally vital to the job of the paratrooper.
Finally, we have volunteer armed forces. Since the fundamental need of an army is manpower, without recruiters, there might be nobody defending your freedom.
Since the USMC is a federal entity, doesn't this constitute an act of treason or rebellion against the United States of America, and therefore punishable by armed force, if necessary?
The question I have is whether the USMC would be able to get an injunction or some such from a federal judge ordering the city to restore order or face fines. If a judge can fine cities over integration issues and such surely they can enforce civil order
im a libertarian who pretty much votes republican because i just dont like where dems are going sorry guys
anyways to me it just bugs me because any day one of those guys could be ordered back to say iraq or aphganistan and die and realy isnt ordering the office removed an infrengment of the recruits themselves rights sence it keeps them from having the ability to go to the recruiter and talk face to face? also, code pink and many of these other organisations are funded by and or are communist/socalist/islamist frenge groups and well seems to me the best way and realy th only way to bring dow the us is threw the economy and the ppls/morals/patriotism
anyways my 2cents
Hmm. I think the source of outrage from the right over these incidents results from the unequal protection under the law granted to things conservatives value.
There's no question that the NARAL example is correct and instructive. There is also no question that were such a thing to happen, it would be a national news story repeated thrice an hour for weeks; the ACLU lawsuits would be awash in funding; the conservative defendants denounced by even fellow conservatives for "having the right motives but doing it the wrong way."
But the mistreatment of the Marine recruiters has vanished from public consciousness with nary a ripple.
In short, both sides do it, or would do it, because government power is corruptive. But only the left receives justice when mistreated by the right; when the right is mistreated by the left, our cultural leaders whistle as they walk by on the opposite side of the road.
In an earlier age, the National Guard was sent to Arkansas to override the injustices imposed at a state level.
It may not be the right answer, but it would be deeply emotionally satisfying to see the National Guard sent to Berklee to defend the USMC recruiters' office.
Quincy, one teeny little problem with your original analysis: neither the Marines, nor any other component of our armed forces determine questions of policy such as "don't ask, don't tell." That policy was established by Congress. The Army, Marines, Navy, or Air Force have nothing to say about the matter.
Considering the number of times this point has been raised on various milblogs, I'm surprised interested parties are still unaware of who is responsible.
If anyone is unhappy with the policy, they need to raise the question with their Representatives and Senators. Berkeley would be well-advised to star with Pelosi and Boxer. They have no legitimate beef with the USMC. Not that that ever stopped lackwits such as Code Pink and company.
Casey -
You're right. "Don't Ask..." is a policy of Congress, not the USMC.
I never insisted it was a creation of any of the US Armed Forces. The only place in the post where I mention it is in the summarization of the Berkeley City Council votes. The logic in that section is *theirs*, not mine.
The US Military Corps is a federal organization governed by the Constitution, not a private organization, so the comparisons to NARAL, etc. are completely invalid.
The Marines, as a federal organization, have no "right to free association" but are rather governed by the Constitution (as are all other government agencies).
The military's anti-gay policy is an unconstitutional violation of the 10th and 14th Amendments. While the Boy Scouts certainly have the right to exclude whoever they want on whatever religious superstitions they choose to believe, the Marine Corps doesn't.
Government and private organizations are fundamentally different, and any libertarian worth his salt knows this.
Now, regarding Berkeley's individual actions.
They're indeed being clownish (as usual), but none of what they're advocating is unconstitutional. Berkeley encouraging protest against a government organization is participating in constitutionally-protected speech (albeit rather annoying speech).
More disturbing to me is to read all the calls in the comments section for the military to exercise violence in response to peaceful speech. It shows that the concerns of the Berkeley council about the out-of-control nature of the federal government of the United States -- especially its arbitrary and jingoistic policies like the anti-gay stuff -- are very relevant and should be paid attention to by more libertarians. Even if Berkeley's practices to call attention to the issue are a bit silly.
Brian -
A few things: 1. My analysis is focusing on the actions of the Berkeley City Government. Remembering that city governments are completely separate from the federal government, it is reasonable to argue that the government of Berkeley, if it is committed to upholding a free society, must honor the rights of all organizations, including governments above it in the federal hierarchy, to associate freely with the citizens of its town. (Conversely, does it not violate the citizens' right to free association to be barred from associating with another government?)
You say:
Government and private organizations are fundamentally different, and any libertarian worth his salt knows this.
That is correct. But this is a unit of the federal government acting like a commercial entity, renting commercial space, engaging in voluntary, non-coercive actions only.
Were the USMC exercising any sort of police power in Berkeley against the will of its citizens, or imposing uncompensated negative impacts on them, I would consider the matter entirely differently.
In a free society, everyone, including the government, should be free to act so long as those actions don't violate the rights of others. Every libertarian worth his salt should know that, as well.
2. You say:
"The military's anti-gay policy is an unconstitutional violation of the 10th and 14th Amendments. While the Boy Scouts certainly have the right to exclude whoever they want on whatever religious superstitions they choose to believe, the Marine Corps doesn't."
While unfair and certainly a breach of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, I fail to see how the military's selection of personnel falls under the 10th amendment.
A law passed by Congress under the power to "provide and maintain a navy", which is an explicity granted power in Article I, is in no way an abridgement of the 10th Amendment.
3. You say,
They're indeed being clownish (as usual), but none of what they're advocating is unconstitutional. Berkeley encouraging protest against a government organization is participating in constitutionally-protected speech (albeit rather annoying speech).
There's a difference here between Berkeley saying "we hope that Code Pink will keep protesting the USMC recruiting office" and "we're going to use public resources to aid such protests". One is speech and the other is action.
Besides, earlier in your post, you claim that governments have no rights, yet am I now hearing you say that the government of Berkeley has the right under the First Amendment to protest against the federal government? Either governments don't have rights or they do. It doesn't vary just because one government is doing something you approve of (Berkeley) and the other is doing something you disapprove of (the Feds).
Now, the way I look at it is that governments, at any level, have the right to speak about whatever or whomever they choose. When the line is crossed into taking action against people who've violated no one's rights in their jurisdiction, they have crossed the line.
The Marines, as far as I know, did not harm or coerce *anybody* within the city of Berkeley by any reasonable definitions of those terms. So, the abridgement of the Marines' property rights as a paid tenant in Berkeley simply can't be defended.
4. You say:
"More disturbing to me is to read all the calls in the comments section for the military to exercise violence in response to peaceful speech."
Here, I absolutely agree with you. While I find the city of Berkeley to be derelict in its duties as a city government, I would be deeply disturbed if the Feds took this as a sign to use force against them.
If anything, I would consider this a tort, and were I the Marines or an impacted neighboring business, sue for the the amount of rent paid (and business income lost, in the neighbors' case,) for the time Code Pink impeded access to the premises with the material support of the city of Berkeley.
Anyway, sorry for the tome-ish reply and thanks for the thought-provoking comment!
Actually you're wrong about the libertarian perspective - the purpose of any libertarian gov't is to ensure the rights of all citizens - including military recruiters - not to restrict lawfula ctivity.
I agree with your free speech argument. It's everybody's right to say whatever they feel, and in doing so, make fools of themselves. And it's our right to call them on it.
This isn't the first brilliant stroke by the Berkeley city council. For some odd reason, they think they're Guardians of the Light. 2001: recommend the US stop bombing in Afghanistan. 2002: mandate the sale of only "fair-trade" coffee in Berkeley. 2004: resolution to remove the "personhood" of corporations. The list goes on and on.
An editorial in the Stanford Daily:
Berkeley City Council Resolution is inappropriate
"However, it is entirely inappropriate for local government officials to use their organizations to take distant, thinly-veiled pot shots at the government that works so hard every day to protect their very freedom to criticize it."
I'd summarize most of this as: let the Berkeley City Council worry about Berkeley, and let people who catually know what's going on worry about the rest.
I would have to go so far as to say that the City Council, or any government agency, has no right of free speech per se. As a government, in theory at least, they speak for all of the people in their jurisdiction. Therefore, any pronouncement they make carries the weight of all citizens involved, and should be restricited to issues of fact and law. For the City Council to offer an opinion outside the scope of wether an activity is lawful is to exceed their mandate.
If they believed that the activities being conducted by the recruting office were unlawful, they could excercise their own coercive powers, rather than "outsourcing" to Code Pink. Since they haven't, they obviously believe that any such attempt would be viewed (rightly, in my opinion) as at best overreaching and at worst as open insurrection.
It seems the Berkeley CC decided that there isn't a single citizen within the city limits who might want to chat with the Marines about enlisting.
Wouldn't the CC be infringing on the right of access for its citizens by forcing them to seek a USMC recruiting center outside of the city?
This is typical of low-level governments everywhere who waste the taxpayers dime on useless ventures.
Some of these people should try to understand what the “Freedom of Speech” tenant is before they use it as the basis of defending the mayor and city council. That freedom belongs to the “PEOPLE” not the government. The “people” protesting the misuse of government are the ones who have the rights not the mayor. The city government has no “right” to say anything while the “people” protesting certain members of the city government have every right to protest the usurpation, by the mayor, of government resources to forward his own personal agenda. These people don't even understand how valuable their rights are, that is why they so easily give them over to people who misuse them. Even if they side with the mayor and his lackeys on this one particular issue it is not a right that should so easily be given up. It's no wonder city governments like this exist, the people who live there don't know or even care about how much the Marines and others have sacrificed to give them their “Freedom of Speech”. They gladly hand over the “peoples” rights to a government run by an ungrateful, disgruntled ex-employee and spit on the very people who sacrificed so much to give them that right. If the mayor and the rest of those ingrates had any integrity they would take your protest to Washington, but of course its cold in Washington and it would be inconvenient. It's easier to use deluded old women and unthinking parrots who don't even understand what “Freedom of Speech” is to do the protesting for them. Now they show their true cravenness by not even defending what they claimed was the moral high ground. These people, so quick to take a stand against something they claimed was immoral and illegal don't even see the irony in what they've done. In contrast to the Marines, these toadies lack the courage to even defend their position. At the mere mention of withholding funding these people hide behind each other, clinging like a pack of monkeys, and proclaim it was a mistake. The immorality is clearly there, it drips off the mayor and covers his city council with a stench.
I personally am not a liberal or a conservative. I am a soldier and therfore have an obligation to remain non-partisan out of loyalty to this country regardless of who is in office. However this does not change my privlege to free speech so I have this to say about the Code Pink fiascoe. First off Code pink really has not grounds for trying to oust the marines simply because they hae only been around since 2003 and that recruiting station has probably been a good rent paying tennant (also read as Resident of the city) in that city much longer than the Pinkers. Furthermore, I am extremely disapointed that our own countrymen are hell bent on harming the readiness of our country. I have not been a recruiter other than your regular soldier trying to be a good example of a citizen who defends our country. That said I believe this has to be the most difficult time in recruiting. I will close now, but I highly urge everyone to support the armed forces. I'm not saying go find one to intently pat them on the back. But if your friend has a son or daughter in the service, send them a christmas card or somthing when they're deployed, that kind of stuff motivates them and makes them feel good. they may even write back a thank you.
Post a Comment