What Good Are "Rights?"

I protest the protests.

As Peter Maurin put it, "Strikes don't strike me."

Glenn Greenwald is blogging about federal arrests and searches of protesters at the Republican National Convention. Hurricane Gustav may take a lot of wind out of the RNC sails, and a low-key Republican convention may dampen the enthusiasm of an army of protesters set to besiege Minneapolis-Saint Paul. Good. I believe our number-one priority should be to convert the "men in blue," persuading them to repudiate archism, not to "protest" them.

But then, I oppose the American "War for Independence."

I do oppose tyranny, and I suppose that sets me apart from most Americans, who talk about "rights," but actually believe in subservience. Not just believe in it, but count on it. Greenwald writes:

We love to proclaim how much we cherish our "freedoms" in the abstract, but we despise those who actually exercise them. The Constitution, right in the very First Amendment, protects free speech and free assembly precisely because those liberties are central to a healthy republic -- but we've decided that anyone who would actually express truly dissident views or do anything other than sit meekly and quietly in their homes are dirty trouble-makers up to no good, and it's therefore probably for the best if our Government keeps them in check, spies on them, even gets a little rough with them.

After all, if you don't want the FBI spying on you, or the Police surrounding and then invading your home with rifles and seizing your computers, there's a very simple solution: don't protest the Government. Just sit quietly in your house and mind your own business. That way, the Government will have no reason to monitor what you say and feel the need to intimidate you by invading your home.

Federal government involved in raids on protesters - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

The Myth of "Rights"

Thomas Jefferson, Instructions in the Virginia Convention to the Delegates to Congress