We actually agree mostly, I meant The Nation magazine, not the Nation/State but your point is otherwise well taken. I have just been re-reading material on Shays' Rebellion and the role it played in federalism and the demand for a Bill of Rights. Good to read right now, because it exactly set up the relationship beween the rights of the people v. those of the state as a perpetual conflict, and healthy at that.
-Chip
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of Chuck Grimes
> Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 4:37 PM
> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> Subject: Re: Cockburn on "crackpot realism"
>
>
>
> Also, it is artificial to suggest the choice is between supporting
> The Nation on their war stance or defending civil liberties. The
two
> are not necessarily related. (Chip Berlet)
>
> ----------
>
> Take it further.
>
> The only reason that there are civil liberities and civil rights
is
> because some group of people in the past refused to support the
State
> without these guarantees. The arguement you make above assumes
that
> rights issue from the State. But rights are unalienable do not
issue
> from the state and exist independent of the state. This sets up a
> cycle of endless civil unrest, resistance and war against the
> suppression, oppression, and aggession by the state against its
> people.
>
> This in my view is the proper relationship between the people and
the
> state. It is the reciprocal to the State's view of the people as a
> stiff necked and recluctant animal that needs be steered and
cajoled,
> alternating between sticks and carrots.
>
> Niether side owes alligence to the other, rather they are always
in
> conflict.
>
> Chuck Grimes
>
>
>
>
>
>