Let’s start with Neri and executive privilege: A timeline courtesy of the PCIJ.
My column today is A color of constitutionality The Inquirer editorial today is In aid of transparency, My column was less enthusiastic than today’s editorial about the compromise offered by the Chief Justice: Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S.J. who, by all accounts, was coaching the legal team arguing the Senate case, wasn’t pleased, either, but tried to make the best of it in A case of delicate balancing -but all have been overtaken by events.
The problem is of course, something that came as a surprise yesterday evening: Senate rejects SC compromise on Neri.
(see also, Senate rejects compromise: Conditions set by SC seen as crippling legislature) I’ve been mulling over the reasons why the Senate decided to harden its position and rebuff the Supreme Court. I think the Senators decided they are operating from a position of strength, legally and politically speaking.
By all accounts, going into yesterday’s oral arguments, the Supreme Court was split, 7-7, on Neri’s petition. The effect of such a vote, if it had taken place, would have been to deny Neri his petition. However, revealing, in essence, a party-line vote would have discredited the Supreme Court, because it would have shown that even clearly significant cases are now reduced to which justice is loyal to the President, or not.
For that reason, it would have made sense for the Chief Justice to throw the ball back in the Senate’s court, hoping it would clarify the extent to which Neri intended to be obstructionist. The Palace, for its part, faced with a sure loss if the Supreme Court had voted, could also look forward to a reprieve, while Neri in the meantime could invoke executive privilege, get into trouble with the senators, and have the whole thing end up back in court.
By which time, a new Justice would have been appointed, thus further firming up the administration’s numbers in the high court.
The Senate, though, in rejecting the compromise offered by the Chief Justice, and which has therefore puts pressure back on the court. The Supreme Court can now proceed to drag its feet: SC needs time for final ruling on executive privilege.
Lawyer Teddy Te, for one, is happy over the Senate’s decision (see his blog, Vincula):
After nine hours of orals, the Supreme Court Chief Justice offers a compromise–perceived by Malacanang to be “solomonic”, which should already put you on guard–to the Senate: 1. Neri will testify at the Senate, 2. he will not be arrested anymore, 3. but the three questions he had invoked “executive privilege” against will not be asked anymore and will be considered asked, and 4. each and every time he invokes executive privilege, the issue will be tossed back to the Court.
My first reaction was that it was a “cop out” by the Court, after strong decisions on press freedom and showing strong resolve against EJK and ED with amparo and habeas data. Later on, after speaking with very reliable sources, it made sense–though I still didn’t agree with the compromise; my sources told me that the CJ and Justice Carpio felt outvoted by the Gloria people in the Court and feared a loss had they insisted on a decision–so to avoid a loss, the CJ offered the compromise. One step backward, two steps forward–was it Lenin who said this, or Tommy Manotoc? Yes, it made sense but it still left me with a bad taste in the mouth.
If the Senate approved the deal, Gloria wins, hands down and the Senate loses, big time. The power of the Senate to summon witnesses would be severely impaired and the dictator gets away with silence on the three questions that directly place the ZTE deal at her doorstep.
I am glad that the Senate FINALLY acquired a collective spine (did that include you, Joker?) and some collective sense of identity and history and said, “thanks, but no thanks.” I hope the SC addresses this issue and, despite the lifting of E0 464, rules that its invocation under those circumstances was not proper and that Neri SHOULD answer those 3 questions.
This explains, to my mind, why the Palace slams Senate’s ‘arrogance’ for rejecting SC proposal. The compromise could have hidden the party-line vote it had in the Supreme Court; and it bought that most precious of political commodities, time. But, since anything is possible, it could also happen that an irritated Supreme Court, piqued by the Senate’s rejection, could then simply decide in Neri’s favor.
In the meantime, returning to Fr. Bernas’ piece, some problems now arise:
If no compromise is reached, will the court require Neri to appear at the Senate? Neri has claimed that he has the right not to heed the Senate’s call.
Should the court require Neri to appear, it would mean that for the court, the current Senate inquiry is not one where President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo may prevent a department secretary from appearing, as provided for in Article VI, Section 22 of the Constitution.
Rather, the court would be saying that the current Senate inquiry is one in aid of legislation under Article VI, Section 21.
In Senate v Ermita, the court said that only the President and justices of the Supreme Court are exempt from summonses to an investigation in aid of legislation. Neri is neither the President nor a justice of the Supreme Court.
Should Neri still refuse to appear, in effect he would be claiming a right analogous to the right of an accused against self-incrimination. An accused can completely refuse to take the witness stand.
But if Neri is required to appear, the court would be saying that his situation is more analogous to the right against self-incrimination of a witness who is not an accused.
A witness who is not an accused may raise the defense of right against self-incrimination only when an incriminating question is asked. He has no right to refuse to take the witness stand altogether.
By analogy, the court would be saying that Neri may raise the issue of executive privilege only when a question he deems to be against executive privilege is asked.
It should be remembered that executive privilege belongs to the President and to no one else. At most, it can be claimed by the executive secretary by express authority of the President.
Hence, Neri must be able to show that after prior consultation with the President, he was instructed to claim executive privilege.
Whereupon, following the teaching of Senate v Ermita and in accordance with the tenor of the questions posed by the justices on Tuesday, Neri will be asked what exactly he is seeking to hide behind executive privilege.
At this stage, and as already mentioned during the Tuesday hearing, it may become necessary for the court to examine in chambers the secret sought to be guarded by the executive for the purpose of determining whether indeed the matter can or should be legitimately kept from the eyes of the public.
After all, the Senate has to be properly informed if it is to legislate intelligently, and the public generally has a constitutional right to be informed of matters of public concern.
Moreover, as already admitted in the Tuesday hearing, criminal matters are not covered by executive privilege.
Meanwhile, the story behind this news item –Arroyo revokes EO 464 after meeting with religious leaders– I found out last night. No one was supposed to know the President was going to meet her allied bishops, particularly the ones from Mindanao, at the Discovery Suites. However, the media was tipped off and reporters camped out. This meant that attendees were observed coming and going. And that the President ended up making her announcement sooner than planned. Speaking of bishops, Patricio P. Diaz dissects recent statements by the Catholic hierarchy.
In the meantime, Senators also want Memorandum Circular 108 scrapped. Check out smoke’s comparison of E.O. 464 and M.C. 108.
When he does publish a book, it will a doozy. Read Lito Banayo’s growing feeling of Déjà vu. Meanwhile, the plot thickens: Arroyo not just witness at NBN-ZTE deal signing: and Another China contract missing.
And Gail Ilagan has some interesting observations concerning Lozada’s abduction.
Economic news: Poverty worsens between 2003 and 2006, according to the National Statistics Coordination Board. (see Poverty worsens despite growth and Poor Filipino families now number 4.7 million and More Filipinos below poverty line ) In his blog, [email protected] comments on the figures. In his column, Peter Wallace says that while government claimed 7.3 percent GDP growth last year, the real figure is about 4.8 percent growth. See also Inflation surges to 5.4% in February and NEDA expects to record growth slowdown in Q1.
How do foreign analysts go about determining risk in the Philippines? Read Forecast that Arroyo will survive has ‘large margin of error’ – analyst.
In the blogosphere, Phoenix Eyrie, Reloaded, is at the very least, ambivalent about opposition to the President. Spring Roll is confused by recent events. Mandaluyong High School says, let’s think positive. Splice and Dice thinks that the issues gives people a chance to seize the day. blackshama believes the old People Power is dead, long live whatever replaces it.
Observations from a Lowly Traveller is looking forward to migrating. Bayan ni Kabayan looks at the Neri chart.
There was a huge 10,000 strong rally in the Visayas in Bacolod calling for the resignation of Gloria Arroyo. Does that make it the decision of Imperial Bacolod as well?
Better read the above ADB report since it also affects Imperial Visayas and Imperial Mindanao as well.
parang nasa ellensville na tayo ah.
DinaPinoy,
What did Chavit Singson say when he was asked for evidence? “Ebidensiya? Ako!” Tit-for-tat…
DinaPinoy,
This is the blogosphere, ika nga “no barriers.”
Don’t believe in the “Imperial Manila” bs, I grew up in Cebu and my parents are in Mindanao, if you talk to the people there there’s no such thing – a different story if you talk to governors and mayors of course…
Oops 9:00 na pala…till we meet again…
ramrod,
we still need a clarissa ocampo – with concrete evidence as in a SIGNATURE in a DOCUMENT.
DinaPinoy,
Re Clarissa Ocampo, true, I’m still crossing my fingers though…
ramrod,
i should say i prefer a clarissa ocampo…
mlq3, the impasse we have now is due to the senates inability to focus on what is important. they are easily sidetrack by inanities. a lot of the aid to legislations investigation has not arrive to any definite conclusions. the lack of closure is contributing to the general cynicism of the population hindering and stalling our development.
ramrod,
ingat lang. kailangan din natin ang ‘playground’ na pleasant. tingnan mo ang ibang blogs. sa kabila walang advertisers kasi walang tao.
Very promising indeed. It’s all up to the ordinary folks. If they stop patronising the half-truths of the usual circus promoters:
– the Philippine Media;
– various relics of ‘people power’ thinking; and,
– leaders of organised religion.
These are people and organisations who’s power is underpinned by ignoramus thinking.
If Pinoys can rise to the challenge of becoming an independent-thinking, critical-thinking, and fee-thinking SECULAR society and extricate themselves from the mind games of these medieval relics, only then can we truly progress as a society.
Interestingly enough, the path to true reconciliation and establishment of that New Order that failed to materialise in 1986 (and severely disillusioned Edsa 1 “heroes” such as Jim Paredes) is legal closure.
This cannot be achieved by street circuses and can only be achieved by following a process specifically designed to resolve stuff.
“Seminars given :
1) Soap Making
2) Hair Dressing
3) Post Mortem Cosmetology
4) Pedicure, Manicure, Alot*
5) Astrology 101: Madam Auring Divination Techniques
*alot – bisaya for gupit”
ramrod, nagpakita ka na naman ng “personality flaw” mo – discriminatory yang reply mo kay CaT, alam mo ba yon? sabihin mong “personality flaw” ulit yan…
character flaw na ang tawag dyan…
ramrod,
talk to me! hehe. seriously, hint is staring you in the face. ordinary people don’t give a hoot about manila. governors and mayors experience the power relationships first hand, that’s why.
Mita,
I’ve known The Cat longer that you have, she has no insecurities, that will not bother her at all. Ask her.
Anyway, baka masita na naman ako…bye…
Mita,
The invitation is still on. Coffee, EDSA Shang, 2:30PM this afternoon. Be there or be square… 🙂
governors and mayors experience the power relationships first hand, that’s why. – mindanaoan
so true. by the way, to be grammatically correct (bisaya) it should be mindanaon pronounced “mindanawon.”
Rego, I dont care if you vote for Obama, or Clinton, or McCain. All I care about it, did you vote for Ramiele? 🙂
Before we criticize the government, let us first ask ourselves if we are really doing something for our country?
NORTH RAIL PROJECT :
Three years after loan lpproval and millions spent…what is the status report?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XicRsf24Y3o
Ramiele is great, reminds me of old-school singer we had here like Imelda Papin (hope name is spelt right). Great singer with none of the vocal hysterics of Jaya, etc.
Andrew,
Check out North Rail video above, enjoy paying for it, if you are paying taxes, that is…
Jeg :
Rego, I dont care if you vote for Obama, or Clinton, or McCain. All I care about it, did you vote for Ramiele?
=======================================================
Of course Jeg, more 10 times yata ako bomoto kagabi. She is the Top 12. katatapos lang ia announce. Pero ang bet talaga namin dito sa bahay is David Archuleta. I would love to see these two fighting out in the final 2.
“Before we criticize the government, let us first ask ourselves if we are really doing something for our country” tanong ni Andrew:
ki klaseng tanong ito? Ang isang mamayan na habang araw, araw namumuhay nang Mahusay, di Nagnanakaw nang Ari nang Ibang Tao, di nangdaya sa Eleksyon, di nagsinuggaling at kong nagkamali man ay handa Aminim ang pagkasala at handa rin bumitiw nang Puwesto kong siya ay mayroon kinaukolan at handang rin bayaran ang kanyang pagkamali ay isang mamayan gumagawa Para sa Kabutihan Nang kanyang Bansa…
People Power has lost its functionality. – blackshama
People Power is liberal fascism. – DJB
There may be as many critiques of People Power as there are advocates.
As an advocate, what I see as one basis of People Power is the idea that the people collectively establish governments that may rule over people individually; and individuals agree to such an arrangement to be ruled, by obeying laws promulgated by the government as long as the government so established protects the people’s rights.
Hence, if the government abuses its powers or ignores the limitations the people impose on those powers, and existing curative or rectifying process is unavailing owing to the very same abuse of power or misuse of privileges, then the collectivity can empower itself to remove the abusive and unjust government and enter into a new arrangement. The new arrangement may hold on to revere deep-held values or break new paths. No matter.
In a democracy, the wisdom (or folly) of exercising People Power is not subject to any higher authority than the people themselves (a “political question†in the sphere of Constitutional Law). And the fact that only an intense few dare to actualize the manifestation of the power does not militate against the collective sense of the exercise. For a collective decision require neither a perfect unanimity nor even a numerical majority supposedly determined in the ordinary course in an open tally sheet (as in a plebiscite or a recall process.)
When the government itself ignores or flouts the “rules of the game†under the agreed upon arrangement, such rules as those pertaining to certain essential safeguards ensuring for instance that governmental powers will not be concentrated in one agency or person, collective decision only requires a morally informed consensus among the people, as the principal, on the expediency of exercising People Power. One important caveat however: to be legitimate, the underlying reason behind the consensus ought to get to a continuum deep and wide enough to overpower competing choices including one that may press on to conserve the existing arrangement.
Once a successful People Power is acquiesced in by the people, a new covenant is thereby established which sets into motion the democratic cycle anew.
I mean …. “For a collective decision REQUIRES neither a perfect unanimity nor even a numerical majority . . .”
To DevilsAdvc8 :
Well you are an asshole who fucks your mother and eats your own and your dog’s shit!
Go to hell with Satan you Son of the Devil!
Eat your hearts out with all the bullshit you are saying.
Fuck you!
I tried to be courteous here but I didn’t expect someone claiming to be an intellectual ( maybe a monkey)
like you cussing me because of my beliefs.
So I’ll play your game. Fuck you!
GUYS, WE NEED YOUR HELP!!!
http://www.worldvision.org.ph/
Jeg,
Andito na naman si John. Kahapon pa iyan ah. medyo mainit pagtatalo ninyo ni Madonna and you with him.
Anu ba masasabi mo diyan?
bencard, appreciate your thoughts. will respond in a day or two. am firming up my thoughts based on a long discussion last night with a friend who is a solid defender of the president. my view is that she has summoned up the vast reservoirs of authority of her office but in so doing is making it impossible for any successor to govern with firmness ever again.
Andrew,
Huwag mo na lang pansinin. Let him exhaust himself, mapapagod din yan…
Andrew, libre naman pumasyal dito ang kahit sino. Tsaka hindi ako nainitan. Wala naman nangyaring pagtatalo, kasi nga diba sabi ko hindi ako interesado? Mas accommodating lang talaga siguro sa akin si Ms. Madonna kasi mabuti siyang tao kaya pinaunlakan niya si Herr John.
Sieg Heil
dinapinoy, that’s it. now people are zeroing on what those documents might be and where they are: which is why documenbts are being declared lost and missing, why executive privilege is being invoked to block the release of documents, why other documents such as the oil exploration deal on the spratleys were not announced to the public, why the receipt for the 500k that gaite prepared served to firm up how anomalous that transaction was…
the paper trail and money trail is out there, but it’s taken this long for it to start surfacing and more importantly, for the public to start sensing it’s out there and being actively supressed.
in the end whether before 2010 or after it ends in one thing: gma goes to jail with no pardon this time.
Meron nang magandang ka-duelo dito si COLDKING, bagay silang mag bunong braso.
magdiwang they don’t have to lead to conclusions though better if they did. the activity of engaging in oversight is trmendously important, vital, even. and it’s done it’s share on whatever legislation the palace claims is important.
mlq3 said,
That is assuming she’ll go quietly.
in the end whether before 2010 or after it ends in one thing: gma goes to jail with no pardon this time.
This was what I was suggesting ever since the Garci thing for her own good (and not necessarily ours): Gloria makes a deal with Noli now.
mlq3,
You’re right. Hope your prediction comes true.
When all this probe comes to full circle, those traces of high crimes will finally surface. In the end, the Gaite “personal money” would end up with a voucher (a TO or cash advance perhaps?), another copy of the Spratly agreement will turn up somewhere, etc.
Unless they are cleverly destroyed, tampered with or completely made “missing.” This is how some offices (e.g., Public Works) covered up their messy trails, they burned down the whole building so there would be no smoking guns.
Questions: Can’t a high body (SC or Senate) summon these documents (as it did to Nixon)? How can an executive privilege be an excuse for covering such crimes as high as “sellout” and “bribery”? Amazing!
A couple of years ago, I had the chance to analyze Senate v. Ermita in re Section 21 and Section 22 of Article VI of the Constitution as follows.
The power of inquiry provided under Section 21 of Article VI is just one specific source of the totality of the congressional oversight authority [other sources include a) the power to reorganize the government bureaucracy, including the executive and judicial agencies, b) the power of taxation, c) the power of appropriation, d) the power of impeachment, e) the power of confirmation, f) the power to declare war, and g) the power to raise and support the armed forces]. In this case, the power of inquiry is employed as a tool to carry out the oversight function just as the subpoena and contempt powers are availed of as mechanisms ancillary to the same function. It is not therefore correct to suggest that the oversight power is of lesser consequence than the power of inquiry.
Section 22 of the same Article VI is one other source of the oversight authority of Congress. The Supreme Court in the Senate v. Ermita, adopting the characterization of then constitutional commissioner and chairman of the Legislative Committee Hilario Davide, calls Section 22 as the provision on “Question Hourâ€Â. Such interpretation is not mistaken except that this section, it should be noted, underscores more the interdependence of the two political branches of the government than their separation (hence, its rather non-obligatory or “discretionary†nature by contrast with Section 21). The same section acknowledges the privilege of the heads of the executive departments to appear, with the consent of the President, and be heard by Congress on matters pertaining to their departments (as, for example, in a request by a department head for enhanced powers or greater funding for his department).
In the overall scheme of the oversight function of Congress, Sections 21 and 22 of Article VI are not only complementary but, to borrow Davide’s words, “very, very essential†to each other.
In my humble opinion, in the light of the constitutional conception and overriding reach of congressional oversight, the Supreme Court lacks firm grounding in the following explanation it has provided in the said Senate v.Ermita case:
Sections 21 and 22, therefore, while closely related and complementary to each other, should not be considered as pertaining to the same power of Congress. One specifically relates to the power to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation, the aim of which is to elicit information that may be used for legislation, while the other pertains to the power to conduct a question hour, the objective of which is to obtain information in pursuit of Congress’ oversight function.
When Congress merely seeks to be informed on how department heads are implementing the statutes which it has issued, its right to such information is not as imperative as that of the President to whom, as Chief Executive, such department heads must give a report of their performance as a matter of duty. In such instances, Section 22, in keeping with the separation of powers, states that Congress may only request their appearance.
Nonetheless, when the inquiry in which Congress requires their appearance is “in aid of legislation†under Section 21, the appearance is mandatory for the same reasons stated in Arnault.
Policymaking on the part of Congress is well-nigh plenary. It is then axiomatic that the presumption of acting responsibly and constitutionally is strongly in its committees’ favor precisely because of the equivalent breadth of the oversight function in the policymaking process. This function preponderates over against the possible invocation of the so-called “executive privilege†– one that has yet to find expression in the explicit language of the Constitution.
Very clearly, executive privilege can only be invoked by way of exception. So when the executive officials fail to show that the privilege is “of such high degree as to outweigh the public interest,†as Senate v.Ermita ruling describes it, in the disclosure of the supposedly privileged information, congressional oversight, as a general rule, will trump an appeal to the supposed privilege. In that event, contumacious defiance and refusal to disclose the information sought or needed by Congress for legislative purposes renders the withholding official liable to its contempt process and the attendant punitive measures. Indeed, Congress, acting through its committees, need not rely upon the all-too-measured judicial pace to exercise the ultimate power of oversight and thereupon employ the necessary enforcement tools.
I did mock the Senate then when it dashed to the SC like a cry baby complaining about EC 424, this way:
Now, given that “in republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates†(James Madison, Federalist No. 51), one wonders why the congressional committees easily backed off (unless of course the committee members have been clueless what’s in their wallet) when President Arroyo upon a claim of executive privilege issued Executive Order 424 and the Senate itself immediately repaired to the Supreme Court to complain as if its subpoena and contempt powers were suddenly whisked away by the order like candy bars snatched by a “schoolyard bully.â€Â
Today, I applaud the senators who voted to reject the compromise offered by the SC. They seem to know what’s in their wallet now!
@mlq3
Thanks for the pingback ^_^
I hope I made sense with the post. I was going for a simple recap since blogging about the Lozada issue is… rather hard for me, given the unfortunate position of the information I have and my own personal experiences putting me at cross purposes with the current “norm”, that is, being anti-Gloria.
@ John
Mmm… interesting. A self-proclaimed neo-nazi.
As a card-carrying member of the Liberal Party, I am… constrained by my ideological beliefs to respect your opinions and your choice. Dyan ka masaya eh.
But, forgive me if I find something wrong with an ideology that managed to justify the deaths of more than 6 million people. And forgive me if I also find something wrong with alleged prosperity that comes at the cost of my humanity and individuality being under someone else’s jackboot.
And have you BEEN to a bloodbath, my friend, to so easily call for one?
Which also goes for all of those who so easily invoke the gods of revolution whenever government fails. I will ask you the same thing I did to the young activists of today in my blog post: its easy to tear down, but will you stay and sacrifice for the rebuilding necessary to make things better?
It’s easy to scream in the streets for “reform”, for “pagbabago”, and quite another thing to actually go about effectively addressing the issues, to bringing about this “change” that won’t just be another round of musical chairs.
Presidents and other national leaders can be removed in an evening or three, but the rebuilding that follows will take years, long, oftentimes frustrating, years. Sometimes even a whole lifetime may not be enough to do it.
Especially when the corruption and impunity you rail against is not only centered around a particular person or two, but is also systemic and cultural in nature.
@ kabayan
agree, with machevallian advisers like saludo and generals as coterie.
btw, mlq3 – she looks real mean in the picture on top. it wasn’t altered right?
the next government should make the guilty accountable for all their crimes and atrocities committed against the entire filipino nation.
that will be the greatest test for whoever takes over after gma. applying the full force of our laws and appropriate punishment. it should be done without any prejudice and bias.
same laws they prostutited and bastardize to no end will be used to punish the guilty.
Just to reinforce my point above (at 11:40 pm), here’s how the NSCB gets its data on imports that go into the GDP figure (as a deduction).
http://www.census.gov.ph/data/technotes/notefts.html
Smuggled goods have no such documents. So if we have an estimate of the level of smuggling, then we would have an idea by how much GDP is overstated.
istambay_sakalye,
Hmmm, with Noli? I wonder.
It is trueâ€â€politics is not exactly the best site to look for the truth. But then, neither is the justice system a privileged site for finding the truth. Indeed, a refrain we often hear from lawyers is that not all truths are admissible in court. It is clever for Malacañang to argue that the proper resolution of the ZTE-NBN controversy rests exclusively with the courts. Treating it as a purely legal matter is a way of suppressing the many other faces of truth.– prof. randy david
Public Lives
A big year for verity
By Randy David
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 02:22:00 03/01/2008
What is at stake here is not just the legality or illegality of a contract. More than this, what is at stake is the power of citizens to hold their leaders accountable for decisions that are made in their name. Have these leaders been transparent and faithful to their oath of office? Or have they misused the powers and prerogatives entrusted to them? Such questions are decided not in court or in church but in the public sphere of politics, not by judges or prelates, but by a nation’s citizens.
We should wait for the next elections then, they tell us. Under normal circumstances, we should indeed. But if the electoral mechanism itself has been rigged and brazenly abused by the present leadership, shouldn’t the first step be to repair this vital mechanism of democracy and restore its legitimacy? This brings us to the key question: Do we still believe this is possible under Ms Arroyo? The truth has caught up with us. It is time to face it.– prof. randy david/pdi
Today’s joke: No money? You are invited to the Gaite Lending Co. No interest on all “awa†[mercy] loans. Limited documentation; they deliver the money right to your doorstep. They also do package tours to Hong Kong and London on short notice. Airport tarmac pickup available on request.—neal cruz/ pdi
🙂
ahaha. i got a rise out of the jerk. so how does it feel to be provoked john? is it hot in the pits of hell? well, now that i’ve got your attention, i will tone down and become civil (no matter how hard that is with you) *sigh*
so here i am, a monkey, debating with a self-proclaimed intellectual. i hope you can throw me a banana or two while i coast through the salient points of your posts. here are some of your more memorable phrases (and they were funny, too!)
“pit of anarchistic communism”
Do you know that in its purest sense, anarchy means an “absence or non-recognition of authority and order in any given sphere?” Anarchy is not synonymous with an absence of “rules or laws,” though that is what its colloquial term has now evolved to. Purist anarchists abhor governments (or any form of authority that imposes obedience) but does not refuse the need for laws. the difference is that purist anarchists don’t want laws to be enforced by any individual or group, but would rather want that the laws be self-imposing. what does this mean? that the force of laws must come from an individual’s own sense of conscience, without the need of being compelled to follow it. in its highest form, anarchists trusts in the innate goodness of man to believe that anarchy will work.
So how did your phrase become funny? Well, communism is defined as “a form of government which attempts to empower workers and eliminate social class. Its socioeconomic structure promotes the establishment of a classless, stateless society based on common ownership of the means of production.” In essence, anarchists wouldn’t want communism as well as that is the exact opposite of what it wants. state power!
That’s point one of being oxymoronic. What made it more funnier was for a person to bash this ideology when he proclaims himself to be a nationalist socialist.
Here is the follow-up definition as taken from wikipedia: “communism is usually considered a branch of the broader socialist movement that draws on the various political and intellectual movements that trace their origins back to the work of theorists of the Industrial Revolution and the French Revolution.”
and as if that wasn’t enough for a self-proclaimed socialist, here is what Karl Marx had to say:
“socialism would be the socioeconomic system that arises after the proletarian revolution, in which the means of production are owned collectively. This society would then progress into communism.”
Haha. Socialism’s goal is to progress into communism. John, I think you should get pointers from Randy David and Satur Ocampo, whom you call hardline communists, and ask them how to attain “higher socialism.”
now, i can finally say with conviction and utter civility
fuck you – from a monkey to an intellectual