Implications of Catering to Extremism

D v. R

This is not an article about Democrats and Republicans.  It is an
examination of the struggle in the United States to change a Republic with
accountable, defined government and inviolate individual rights into a
Democracy wherein the central government grows continuously by fulfilling
the wishes of every faction desiring to impose itself or its ideas on
everyone else and everything.

A similar struggle is more advanced in Europe .  Whether characterized as a
shift from democracy to socialism or as a "necessary" unification of
European states for economic or social purposes, the struggle is the same.
Private property and guaranteed individual rights, while never having
existed as powerfully in Europe as in the United States , are dwindling along
with individual States in a blizzard of laws and regulations from a central
government.  No facet of life or society is safe from the regulation and
reach of central government politicians and bureaucrats unchecked by courts.
Values, families, communities, lifestyles, traditions, and future are sucked
into this whirlwind.

A major facet and engine of the production of precedents and propaganda for
this march to replace the American Republic with a Democracy, and then
assumedly with the socialism and oligarchy rising on Europe 's horizon, is
the environmental/animal rights movement.  A few of literally thousands of
such examples from the past 35 years suffice to make this point:

1. Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) Congress authorized and the courts
approved -

A.) Government power to declare any private property "Critical Habitat" and
to thus, without "compensation" nor for a "public purpose", (as required in
the Constitution) to take control of any use of that property from the
owner.

B.) Government power to introduce and protect deadly predators like wolves
and bears without being responsible for the loss of livestock, loss of game,
loss of domestic animals like pets, or human deaths resulting from such
introductions.

C.) Government power to ignore or crush any State government or local
government objections to Federal "endangered species" actions.


2. Under the Animal Welfare Act Congress seized authority over an
ever-growing list of animals, owned as private property, from their owners
and from state and local governments.

3. Under the Marine Mammal Protection Act Congress seized authority over all
marine mammals in state waters or jurisdiction and, like the ESA assumed the
ownership of such animals from private owners.

4. Under the Wilderness Act Congress destroyed all the legal and sensible
obligations of the past to manage certain Federal lands for "multiple uses"
and to support local communities and local economies while providing food
and fiber for the nation.  Henceforth, a politically advantageous moment to
close such lands to any use or access regardless of previous commitments
would be condoned.

5. While urban agendas and constituencies from Oklahoma City to New Orleans ,
and Presidential aspirations of a Governor of New Mexico (Richardson) are
fuel for eliminating the ancient tradition of cockfighting, Federal
legislation is passed to eradicate interstate aspects of such activity.  The
birds are private property and their regulation should remain a state or
even preferably a local matter.

6. Horse slaughter, an emotional issue with the affluent and certain urban
constituencies, is banned by Federal legislation.  Horses are private
property and, like fighting cocks, the recent spate of Federal authority
declarations over these animals and their disposition by owners would have
been unimaginable just 50 years ago.

One thing all six examples have in common is the lack of outcry other than
from those directly affected.  Horse owners felt no connection to the
elimination of cockfighting.  Marine Mammal owners and users showed no
interest in the passage of the Animal Welfare Act.  Dog owners, like private
property owners and public property users, felt little need to be concerned
about passage of a law to "protect" "endangered species".  Hunters, campers,
fishermen, travelers, and rural communities felt no need to concern
themselves with the impacts of the Wilderness Act on timber production or
ranching.

Indeed, even organizations founded to advance elk hunting or trout fishing
supported the wolf program eliminating elk hunting and the Wilderness Act
closing access to and management of trout fishing and the replacement of
robust trout fisheries with anemic fisheries or even lost trout fisheries.
State agencies like fish and wildlife and parks agencies increasingly have
come to depend on Federal largesse as Federal power and funding availability
grows.  Universities likewise have adapted completely to the new paradigm as
grants and other emoluments build University careers and reputations.

"So what?" you say.  Many of us feel cockfighting is "cruel".  Many of us
believe that the horse is a "noble" animal and no one should be "allowed" to
be slaughter one for any reason.  No price is "too great to pay" to "save" a
"species".  Marine Mammals are "cute" and "intelligent" and "necessary to
the environment".  A "wilderness" has "supernatural" qualities that
transcend and trump any and all "other" "ecosystems".  It would be
impossible to "save" all the "endangered species" if we had to pay for every
cow claimed by some farmer or dog claimed by some hunter or even some kid
when he "didn't belong there" or had failed to behave properly or pick up
all his garbage.  State governments and local governments are relics of the
past and if we are to be able to "compete" and "advance" more government
power and more rule of the informed "experts" is the only way we will
"survive".

In a Republic with guaranteed rights NONE of this would happen.  Species in
peril would be addressed by voluntary Federal incentives to property owners
in line with state laws and regulations in which the property lies.  If
Federally managed animals killed stock, pets, and people then compensation
would be due and state ability to eliminate or reduce such animals on all
land under state authority (including all Federal lands not held under
Exclusive Authority or necessary for national defense).  Queasiness on the
part of any citizen over the disposition of privately owned horses
slaughtered for food or of gamecocks (remember a great Revolutionary War
Hero was named after such animals) used as families have done for eons;
would be grounds for no more than avoiding the eating of horseflesh, or
feeding horsemeat to your pet or other animals, or attendance at a
cockfight.  Animal experiments would remain the prerogative of a University
or company.  Marine Mammals would not only remain under state authority in
state waters except where a ratified Treaty intervened.  Marine Mammals
would be managed for numbers and distributions to maximize "watching" and
commercial fishery stocks.  Federal commitments to retain or purchase land
for multiple uses and rural economic development and national uses would not
be little more than royal decrees that could be changed with tomorrow's
winds.

In a "democracy" ruled by elite "experts" centrally (this is called an
oligarchy) anything is possible.  We say the world is "warming" so from now
on "we" control this and that.  We say only "native" species belong so we
will now control all those and those and that and.  We say this harmful
species "belongs here" so you must either stay inside, have no pets or
children, stay out of the woods, or move to a city where "you" belong.  No
one "belongs" "here" so here is a payment for your property and you must be
gone by next week.

If you think some of this sounds "OK" or if you don't think it is worth
fighting to reverse this slide into oligarchy allow me to use these
precedents in another area of national life.  I could speak at length about
sexual license or family authority or our disappearing attitude toward Life
as areas that are experiencing these same phenomena but I choose instead the
demographic changes we are experiencing.

Many Americans and Europeans profess to be abhorred by government processes
in Moslem nations.  Non-Moslems are discriminated against with impunity.
Death and violence quickly emerge and go unpunished when other religions are
practiced or even discussed in many instances.  Immams function as judges
and can declare almost any punishment.  Private property is tenuous at best
and central governments are often arms of religious law.  In border nations
when Moslem numbers reach significant levels, friction with non-Moslems over
the supremacy or untouchability of religious court rules cause riots and
deaths.  In all honesty, there appears to be little interest in immigrating
to these lands or to live under their ideas of law.

When Moslems move to Europe or the United States they may express interest
in ruling their communities similarly to where they came from.  They may
feel that there is only their view of the world or that everyone else should
live as they decree (like many environmental/animal rights organizations).
So how should we (theoretically) answer such desires of some of these newest
members of our society?

If there were demands to stop all display of any religious symbolism both
publicly and privately, what could we do but comply? You say we have
"freedom of religion"?  Well we also "HAD" a "right to private property"
that Congress eliminated with a snap of its fingers because some influential
folks wanted it.

If there were demands to forbid any "unclean" animals, what could we do but
comply?  If Congress can simply take away your right to use your own
gamecock or horse as you want simply because a powerful coalition demands
it, why not  take away your right to own or possess "unclean" animals too?

If certain public lands were requested for Moslem-only purposes, what could
we do but comply?  If Congress can increasingly make millions of acres of
"public" land inaccessible for "wilderness" advocates' peace of mind, why
couldn't it do so for the peace of mind of other powerful groups?

If different tax rates and more stringent building requirements for
non-Moslems in Moslem communities were demanded, what could we do but
comply?  If Congress can make rural people and ranchers and hunters and dog
owners and loggers bear disproportionate burdens of Endangered Species and
Wilderness legislation, why not grant similar demands of other powerful
groups?

If threats and demands for certain cartoon censorship or restrictions of
public remarks are made, what can we do but comply?  If Congress can claim
authority at the expense of state governments and local control over some
animals because of their "cuteness" or "intelligence", why not simply
eliminate the "freedom of the press" and "freedom of speech" when any
powerful group demands it?  We already practice such censorship in the
schools anyway.

Consider how much more achievable the elimination of freedoms and rights may
be under ONE government (as opposed 50) or thousands of empowered local
governments as we once had.  Consider the lack of appeal on YOUR part when
YOUR rights are eliminated by an all-powerful, far-away, and unresponsive
central government as opposed YOUR state government or YOUR local government
that are vulnerable to your wrath.

I could go on but it is time for supper.  I hope you get the point.  If you
do, welcome to the fight to save the Republic.  If you don't, OUR future
will only grow increasingly darker.


Jim Beers
4 July 2007

- If you found this worthwhile, please share it with others.  Thanks.

- This article and other recent articles by Jim Beers can be found at
http://jimbeers.blogster.com   (Jim Beers Common Sense)

- Jim Beers is available for consulting or to speak.  Contact:
jimbeers7@verizon.net

- Jim Beers is a retired US Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Biologist,
Special Agent, Refuge Manager, Wetlands Biologist, and Congressional Fellow.
He was stationed in North Dakota , Minnesota , Nebraska , New York City , and
Washington DC .  He also served as a US Navy Line Officer in the western
Pacific and on Adak , Alaska in the Aleutian Islands .  He has worked for the
Utah Fish & Game, Minneapolis Police Department, and as a Security
Supervisor in Washington , DC .  He testified three times before Congress;
twice regarding the theft by the US Fish & Wildlife Service of $45 to 60
Million from State fish and wildlife funds and once in opposition to
expanding Federal Invasive Species authority.  He resides in Centreville ,
Virginia with his wife of many decades.