I don't have time for this - not when I'm in the home straight of a huge translation job. But...
...I can't help it. I have to put this on record somewhere.
Like I imagine any kind of writer, I am always delighted to find myself quoted and (possibly) discussed. And it just happened in one of the most prestigious conservative blogs in existence. However, my pleasure turned to ashes in my mouth when, one entry before mine, I read the following egregious piece of nonsense:
After all, a sincere belief in universal human rights and equality before the law make it impossible to exclude from a society the kind of immigrants who are incompatible with a strong national identity
If that is the best that the intellectual leaders of conservatism can do, no blankitty-blank wonder the left despised them intellectually. Can you say non sequitur? It does not follow; indeed, it is wholly paralogical. Let me explain. Point one: you cannot have any kind of rights, universal or not, except within a system of law. Point two, independent of the first: no system of law or legal philosophy has ever asserted the right to go and settle where one pleases independently of local authority, local residents and local conditions as a universal human right. To the contrary, "and henceforth let no man enter it without their leave", the words by which a great king of literature grants a community sovereignty over their lands, is the very definition of sovereignty. A community, a nation, a state, a king, a tyrant, any one of them, good or bad, is sovereign, capable of creating and enforcing law, if he or they can decide who enters their land and who does not. You cannot have law without sovereignty, and you cannot have rights without law. The notion that a belief in universal human rights disables the rule of law is mere insanity, deriving from false premises, deriving in turn from a desire to demonize rather than to understand one's opponents. ("They want to abolish borders and let everyone in.") Which incidentally also results, ultimately, in rejection of the basis on which the USA in particular have been built, that is, the Declaration of Indepencence. Because if "a sincere belief in universal human rights" is contrary to the rule of law, then those who were sincere enough to risk an armed revolt in support of the statement that it is self-evident that men are endowed with certain and inalienable rights were wrong, and you should apologize to King George's shade and crawl back into the British Empire with your tails between your legs.
Like I imagine any kind of writer, I am always delighted to find myself quoted and (possibly) discussed. And it just happened in one of the most prestigious conservative blogs in existence. However, my pleasure turned to ashes in my mouth when, one entry before mine, I read the following egregious piece of nonsense:
After all, a sincere belief in universal human rights and equality before the law make it impossible to exclude from a society the kind of immigrants who are incompatible with a strong national identity
If that is the best that the intellectual leaders of conservatism can do, no blankitty-blank wonder the left despised them intellectually. Can you say non sequitur? It does not follow; indeed, it is wholly paralogical. Let me explain. Point one: you cannot have any kind of rights, universal or not, except within a system of law. Point two, independent of the first: no system of law or legal philosophy has ever asserted the right to go and settle where one pleases independently of local authority, local residents and local conditions as a universal human right. To the contrary, "and henceforth let no man enter it without their leave", the words by which a great king of literature grants a community sovereignty over their lands, is the very definition of sovereignty. A community, a nation, a state, a king, a tyrant, any one of them, good or bad, is sovereign, capable of creating and enforcing law, if he or they can decide who enters their land and who does not. You cannot have law without sovereignty, and you cannot have rights without law. The notion that a belief in universal human rights disables the rule of law is mere insanity, deriving from false premises, deriving in turn from a desire to demonize rather than to understand one's opponents. ("They want to abolish borders and let everyone in.") Which incidentally also results, ultimately, in rejection of the basis on which the USA in particular have been built, that is, the Declaration of Indepencence. Because if "a sincere belief in universal human rights" is contrary to the rule of law, then those who were sincere enough to risk an armed revolt in support of the statement that it is self-evident that men are endowed with certain and inalienable rights were wrong, and you should apologize to King George's shade and crawl back into the British Empire with your tails between your legs.