Skip to main content

Can you face the truth about your government?

What is the truth about your government? Murray Rothbard eviscerates every myth surrounding the State in this short essay. The truth about the government of whatever country in which you reside is that it is nothing more than a crime syndicate with a monopoly on law and force that maintains the perception that it is morally legitimate. Does this sound like insanity to you? If you are scientifically inclined, do you remember the feeling of bewilderment and borderline disbelief the first time you read about Einstein's theory of relativity or Schrodinger's and Heisenberg's formulations of quantum mechanics? If you are mathematically inclined, do you remember how you felt the first time you encountered Newton's and Leibniz's calculus of variations? Anyone who has experienced a mental "conversion", that is, a realignment of the mental model by which they interpret the world has experienced the initial feeling of disbelief and disorientation upon encountering a staggering challenge to their own preconceived ideas - possibly cherished - with evidence and clear, consistent reason.

Most people believe that modern government is "pretty good overall", that while it has some bad apples in it, most of those eventually get found out and drummed out by exposure and embarrassment in the media, and so on. But if you look at history dispassionately, it does not appear that there is any improvement or reduction in the corruption of the State. Granted, the State finds it harder to control the flow of information to hide its crimes, with the advent of new technologies that enable the rapid dissemination of information. However, this indicates no "progress" or "enlightenment" on the part of our rulers from the times of whips, racks and crucifixions. Consider the eagerness of the Bush administration and its allies (Blair, Brown, Chirac, Sarkozy, Merkel, Howard, and the US puppets in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.) to resurrect these powers in kind: Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, waterboarding, indefinite detentions even of US citizens (Padilla) and "outsourcing" of torture to foreign countries (Egypt, Syria) and private contractors (David Passaro), secret imprisonment (extraordinary rendition... some vestige of this program still exists under Obama), warrantless wiretaps, sneak-and-peek search warrants, no-knock warrants, gagging National Security Letters (all thanks to the most wonderful PATRIOT Act), shoot-to-kill protections (Australia), even summary execution of innocent civilians in broad daylight (de Menezes). Western governments are supposed to be models of enlightenment and moral decency in politics but the intent to exploit the populace to whatever extent it will bear has never diminished and the evidence bears this out.

As for the supposed moral goodness of Western governments, history shows again and again that there never was any moral superiority of Western governments over others. We need only look at the war crimes of the Allies in targeting civilians in the bombings of Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki (the Allies were much more successful and deadly in their efforts to kill civilians than the Axis powers were even if it was the Axis powers that first resurrected the doctrine of targeting civilians) - not to mention the unapologetic war crimes of General Sherman against fellow Americans during the war of 1861-1865 - the war crimes committed in Operation Keelhaul, the conspiring of US generals at the level of the Joint Chiefs to initiate and simulate terrorism against American citizens in Operation Northwoods, the war crimes committed by the CIA in MKULTRA and the crimes against humanity committed during the Tuskegee Syphilis experiments on black men. Not to mention the orchestrated deposition of an elected leader like Mohammed Mossadegh in Operation Ajax and innumerable other imperial interferences in the affairs of other countries, especially in South America and the Middle East. And I have not even touched on the rampant abuses of basic human decency and dignity within our own borders in the brutal crushing of civil rights protests, the FBI's targetting of anti-war movements and even intimidation of celebrities and people of note.

Reason tells us (see Rothbard's essay above) that the inevitable result of granting an organization the powers which we entrust to the government (monopoly on law and force) is exploitation, war, destruction and constant conflict. The historical record amply confirms what reason tells us. The state is a crime syndicate, a protection racket and nothing more.

Comments

Tim Fleming said…
Unfortunately, apathy is rampant and ignorance is bliss among the majority of Americans.

Tim Fleming
www.eloquentbooks.com/MurderOfAnAmericanNazi.html
http://leftlooking.blogspot.com

Popular posts from this blog

The Constitution has gone to the dogs

Actually, it should have gone to the dogs, but didn't. I'm talking about  Leona Helmsley's estate , of course. The contract clause of the Constitution says, "No State shall ... pass any ... Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts..." This means that private contracts cannot be changed by legislative edict. This clause is incredibly important because the willingness of private individuals to engage in profitable enterprise - which is the foundation of social welfare - crucially depends on their belief that they can realize a profit. In turn, their belief that they can realize a profit depends on their belief that they can hold parties to a contract liable to the terms in the contract. For example, lenders must have confidence that they can repossess the collateral for a loan if the loan is defaulted on. Otherwise, they will not take the risk of giving the loan in the first place. When lenders are too scared to lend, everyone is worse off. In the case of Leona Hel...
So, I spent all weekend watching JFK assassination videos and doing armchair JFK assassination research. Here are my notes: 1) Most of the debate seems to rage around trying to get evidence or proof that JFK's assassination was a conspiracy. This is silly because it grants - from the outset - the bizarre assumption made by the official theories that political figures are as likely to die at the hands of "mad attention-seekers" as they are to be assassinated by their enemies who actually stand to benefit. How many people are insane enough to think that the electric chair is a fair trade for "being remembered" by history, even if in infamy? And of those people how many are resourceful enough to pierce the security perimeter of the President of the United States? Kennedy was threatened by Richard Pavlick in 1960 after Nixon lost the election and, by all accounts, Pavlick was a lone nut. But all we know of his "assassination attempts" are his own tall tale...

What Law Is

Law What is law? Frederic Bastiat, in his treatise The Law, defines law as the collective use of force. As much as I love Bastiat’s treatise, I think his definition is not sufficiently analytical. It is certainly the case that the law plays a role in the collective use of force but the law is something more basic than this. We can begin by looking at law as it is today. The website for the Oregon courts has an excellent summary [1] of modern law and courts. I will quote it at length: Throughout history, people have had disputes and have needed some means to settle their disputes. As civil societies develop, they need an orderly system of conflict resolution. One system that developed in "western" cultures is the "law court" or court of law. In England, those early law courts developed a "body of law" called the common law, which defined both the rights of the people and the government and the duties people owe each other and their government. T...