Musings of an Extremist

As pretty much anyone with a pulse is aware, several "stories" have hit the news over the past few days which jangle right-leaning nerves. I have refrained from comment, trying to digest exactly what to make of them. Are they legitimate stories, or are they just bogus, trumped up non-events, red meat slung out to create a spectacle of snarling political lions? I still don't know. I don't like to wallow in the spectacle of the sordid circus that passes for our national government these days, mainly because it is just a circus, designed to absorb our energies and attentions. Attention is just what it seeks and only lends an air of legitimacy to the illegitimate, but I suppose it is time to comment. A document was released by the DHS concerning potential threats from "right-wing extremism." It discusses recent "developments" which apparently lead the leadership of the DHS to believe that the those on the right of the political spectrum pose a threat to the government of the United States. It lists several behaviors which it has observed as evidence of this phenomenon, such as:

Many rightwing extremist groups perceive recent gun control legislation as a threat to their right to bear arms and in response have increased weapons and ammunition stockpiling, as well as renewed participation in paramilitary training exercises.

I loved this gem:

Antigovernment conspiracy theories and “end times” prophecies could motivate extremist individuals and groups to stockpile food, ammunition, and weapons.

I know I'm guilty. This has received a LOT of commentary, most of it precisely what one would expect: hacked off right-wingers complaining that the government is conspiring against them. It doesn't help that the document treats perfectly reasonable, widely held opinions as terror-linked and with utter condescension. It also doesn't help that the document explicitly states that the government really is conspiring against them:

On the current front, legislation has been proposed this year requiring mandatory registration of all firearms in the United States. Similar legislation was introduced in 2008 in several states proposing mandatory tagging and registration of ammunition.

Basically, the gist of the document is to take We the People to task for responding in a perfectly logical and rational way to the changes we see occurring around us and to policies being considered and undertaken by Washington. For those who haven't noticed, this is all part of a pattern. The natural, rational response to a recession is saving. This is precisely the behavior that will cure a recession, but because it can't stand the thought of Americans saving and ending the recession on their own, government inflates the money supply to force us to stop. Government must be in charge! Likewise, it is now upset at other of our various efforts to wriggle out between the fingers of its iron fist. Heaven forbid we solve our problems on our own. Dependency is the goal here. The government must act to preempt us in our own problem solving capacity, or it ceases to be necessary for the continued survival of individual citizenry who might just be tempted to get rid of it. Or to have absolute coercive power. That too. I hasten to note that virtually every topic mentioned as indicative of terroristic tendencies is one that has been discussed here. What does it say to me? Primarily that the present political leadership of the US is composed of tactless, paranoid, ham-fisted morons, not unlike the tactless, paranoid, ham-fisted morons that were previously in office. Somebody must have made the mistake of accidentally writing down what she really thought and released it to the public. Stupid, but not much more. What did the right expect? Has there ever been a time that statists weren't afraid of those troublemaking freedom-mongers that are always ruining their plans? There really is nothing new to any of this. One would have to be pretty naive to think that the government doesn't read blogs and emails or notice dramatic shifts in buying habits. Do they really think that nobody is watching? Neither "privacy," nor "the law," nor the "inherent restraint" of government ever protected anybody. What protects us is our collective unwillingness to tolerate such actions. The source of the power we often perceive to be in "the law," as opposed to obvious external power Source of "The Law," is the commitment a civilization has to its authority, legitimacy, and sanctity. I have little doubt that this site and many others are being monitored. I have little doubt that powerful people want to silence those who disagree with them. That has ever been and always will be the case. The question is not and never was one of will, but ability. Functionally we have already lost many of our rights which have never actually been legally overturned, such as the right to gold and silver as the only legitimate forms of legal tender. We didn't push back hard enough against The Planners way back when, and lost these rights. I seriously doubt that anybody will be put away for expressing the ideas one might find on a site such as this one, not because of the First Amendment, but because of the widespread outrage I hear expressed on the airwaves right now. That is not to say that we will never lose our first or second amendment rights, just not in the immediate future. At least, unless there are quite a few government agents out there with an urgent deathwish. And I would have to say that the United States government is in very deep trouble indeed if it is afraid of a few folks polishing their guns, thinking outside the government drawn box, and complaining on the internet. This is really a statement of how pathetically detached from reality and weak-kneed and Obama camp, or at least those at the DHS, must be. Next, the not unrelated statements of Texas' own Ham-Fisted-Moron-In-Chief:

"I believe that our federal government has become oppressive in its size, its intrusion into the lives of our citizens, and its interference with the affairs of our state," the governor said in a statement. "That is why I am here to express my unwavering support for efforts all across our country to reaffirm states' rights affirmed by the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution."

What instigated this outburst? The Federal government offered $550 million in "stimulus" funds, with the stipulation that Texas change its policies in how unemployment payments are distributed. Rick Perry opted to refuse the funds rather than change Texas' policies. I actually agree with the sentiment, unfortunately, I must take the incident with a heavy dose of cynicism. I really wish I could believe that the governor of my state was actually advocating for limited government and looking out for my rights and freedoms, but I'm not buying it for a second. This isn't about freedom or "oppression," it is about which politician gets to do the oppressing. Perry is mad because the Feds are butting in on his turf. If Texas is to be oppressed, by golly, a Texan ought to be the one doing it! It is also about political opportunism, as Vox points out. Perry knows that he can look like a hero if he "stands up" to the Feds. He knows such a stance is politically popular with Texans, who are proud of their state's history as a one-time independent, sovereign nation. Almost every gun show I went to back home had a "Republic of Texas" booth set up. But if Perry actually cared about limited government and individual rights, he wouldn't have foisted a completely unnecessary vaccine on little Texans. So, Perry is getting no kudos from me. And since our government has virtually solved all its own domestic problems, it appears that it now has a mind to do the same for Mexico, at least according to Fred Reed:

WASHINGTON — As the Pentagon eyes a bigger role in Mexico's drug war, the military's efforts to open the door to a new relationship with its southern neighbor ….”

Book me a ticket to Mars. The Pentagon is eyeing something, a sure recipe for disaster. Previously it has eyed Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and made a horrendous mess of each. Now the Five-Sided Sand Box is eyeing Mexico. Oh good. Let’s get involved in another third-world catastrophe by meddling in what we don’t understand...

In today’s complicated world, with the Asian giants rising and seeking raw materials, maybe we should pay more attention. Maybe sending the Marines isn’t the answer to every problem. Since World War II, the Pentagon has displayed a nearly solid record of failure in fighting either drugs or peasants with AKs. We do not need to blunder into new and better Afghanistans. We seem to want to, though, and it will bring more leftists to power. In the last election here, a truly nutball leftist (AMLO—Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador) came within a few chads of being president of Mexico. Hugo Chavez thrives on American hostility. We treat Cuba as an enemy and, sure enough, it acts like one. None of this is in the American national interest, boys and girls. It’s just brainless.

I don't know if war with Mexico is in the cards, but Fred is a fair sight better at reading between the lines than I am. If he suspects it, I suppose I should. I hope he is wrong. But if we do end up invading, as he says, it would certainly be a disaster. In addition to his litany of complaints, I would imagine that a sage like Sun Tzu might might have something to say on timing. If you have never read The Art of War, you really ought to, at least the first few pages. His primary concern with winning war, over troops, training, logistics, etc.: money. Economics. Too bad our leadership can't manage the first few pages of such difficult material. I mean, it's a book! I think a promotion is in order. Can a thousand year old corpse be granted a general's stars? We could use him right about now... One little bit I take exception with:

Nothing to it: You bomb the bad guys into submission, teach the people to be honest and democratic as America isn’t and never was and, bingo, a docile Reader’s Digest version of Switzerland pops into existence. Good luck.

I can accept that "America" has certainly never qualified for angelic status, and appears less likely ever to do so by the second. But I have to take exception to the implication that whatever success she may have experienced over others (at least, Mexico) has little or nothing to do with some nonexistent differential in virtue. Not that I necessarily consider democracy a virtue, mind you. I'm just saying... If we had the eyes of the Divine, I would imagine that on the curve of "civizilational virtue," with Heaven on the far upper end and the Seventh Circle of Hell down at the bottom, the nations of the world would most likely be huddled down near the lower bound. All of them. Winning the "Most Virtuous Government" prize is undoubtedly akin to gaining the title of "Most Fragrant Swine." Or maybe that is an insult to swine. At least, I wouldn't argue with overall thrust of such an analogy. But I think that this is a mistake of perspective. Surely, governments that attend to the affairs of nations are uniformly evil, attracting as they do politicians. But that doesn't mean that there are no differences between them or between nations at all. If we were to zoom in on that little cluster of our graph, perhaps a hundred, or a thousand, or a million times, I have little doubt that the commonly considered "successful" nations would begin to segregate away to the upper side of the bunch. We won't see this if we insist on taking the broadest possible view. This is the mistake of applying a linear perspective to what is likely an exponential scale. Much as it allows us to vent our rightfully felt indignation, it doesn't really work well for objectively capturing the essence of the phenomenon. In my opinion. But then again, maybe Fred subscribes to the smart fraction theory of economic causation. I note that the nations of the world cluster near the bottom of that rapidly rising curve as well. I suppose that a strict avoidance of excellence as a universal human tendency would tend to show up in theories that try to be correct. Lastly, I think that Michael Rozeff has the best overall take on the scene playing out before us, and he has good news:

The U.S. federal government is on a course of self-destruction. People of many political persuasions know this. People who are against coercive government know this. People who favor coercive government know this. People who do not mind if the federal government self-destructs know this, and people who want to save the federal government know this. From a scientific viewpoint, one of the interesting aspects of a government that is self-destructing is that the process cannot be stopped, even when people who want to stop it, try. Government based on coercion cannot be tamed. It keeps on running until the clock stops ticking and the bomb goes off.

Coercive government is terminal. Thanks Michael! After all this, I needed to hear that. There is an end! That's the best news I've heard all week!

I'll Be Watching You...

The Obama administration claims not to support a VMT:

In a written statement, the department said, "The policy of taxing motorists based on how many miles they have traveled is not and will not be Obama administration policy."

The idea -- which involves tracking drivers through Global Positioning System (GPS) units in their cars -- is gaining support in some states as a way of making up for a shortfall in highway funding. Oregon carried out a pilot program and deemed it "successful."

The powers-that-be claim that the information would never, ever be used to track the movements of citizens:

"Privacy is protected," the report argued, saying the pilot program included "engineering requirements to maintain as much privacy as practicable while still allowing a feasible way to audit and challenge billings."

"No specific vehicle point location or trip data could be stored or transmitted" in the pilot program, and "the only centrally stored data needed to assess mileage fees were vehicle identification, zone mileage totals for each vehicle and the amount of fuel purchased."

Yeah, right. I'm sure that there are enormous technical hurdles to collecting more specific information. We've gone from security cameras on private property, to photoenforcement of traffic intersections to biometrics in the school cafeteria? Where does it all end? In the internment camp, of course. I note that the cameras at intersections actually increased the number of accidents, and school cafeterias and the highway system seem to have performed perfectly well before any of this was implemented. Don't let the men in black fool you: this is not, and never was, about raising funds or public safety or the like. It's about power. Don't let anybody sell you any garbage about "we need a national ID card to enforce the border," or any of this other nonsense. Rome functioned without a national ID card. Seems to me they got along reasonably well, actually, for quite some time. The border is not enforced, and the budget is not balanced, and the banking system is in tatters etc., etc., etc., because there is not sufficient political will to change these things, and for no other reason. There will never be any "benefit," whatever is promised, only cost. Thankfully, even if such things do happen, our government will be bankrupt within a few years, so at least we might stand a fighting chance of avoiding 1984. Every cloud has a silver lining.

Boxed Milk and Chinese Movies

Actually, Ben makes a good point. Quite often those who govern simply manipulate the public into accepting something that, if put to them honestly, would be handily rejected. A lot of the time it is "wrapped in the flag" as Ben points out, so that it's hard to reject. "The Patriot Act" is a good example of this: lets give the government a bunch of invasive powers that threaten civil liberties to a degree that would at the very least make most Americans a little queasy, and give it a name so that anybody who opposes it will look "unpatriotic." I have to say, I actually fell for this (but then again, I was barely 20 years old at the time). Another common trick is to play up the proposal as being "for the children." Don't like it? You must hate children. Then there is always the misnomer, as Ben points out, like NAFTA, which doesn't include many countries in North America and isn't free at all. Why not call it what it is? Why, that would be silly. This is politics we are talking about. Probably even more common and more insidious is the "bait-and-switch," which Thomas Sowell comments on frequently. The idea is simple: say that the bill is for one purpose, get support for it, then make it actually be something completely different by the time the vote comes up. Nobody will notice. One example that comes to mind is the Texas Lottery, which was originally sold to the public as providing money for education. Most people didn't want a lottery (gambling is illegal in Texas) but were willing to accept a lottery if the money were for education. So the bill was passed, and the money ended up in the general public coffers, NOT earmarked for education as had been promised. Quite a few people were pretty hacked off about that. Now there is talk of privatizing the lottery to raise money for the state. Gambling was illegal in Texas for a reason; Texas is not Nevada. So the state brought it in under the auspice of government, "for the children," then stole the funds for itself, and now it may be going private, just like any other business (except, of course, with a government granted monopoly...) I'm pretty sure that NOBODY would have voted for this thing if it had been known that this was how it would turn out. A program "for the children" will have had the net effect of granting a government monopoly to a private gambling ring in a state with a fairly Victorian mindset when it comes to issues of vice. Nice. Of course, all this is true, and yes, the common folk are getting things rammed down their throats which they would have opposed if they had known honestly what it was that was being legislated. But I would make several comments:

• voters would have to be insanely naive at this point to continue to believe what was being sold to them by government
• voters would have to be insanely stupid to keep reelecting these politicians, yet the incumbency rate is typically around 98%
• this kind of thing happens a lot more often in some places than others
• this kind of thing is allowed to go to much further extremes in some places in others
• it wouldn't happen much at all if government power had actually been limited to the extent provided by the Founders, but which we smarter, younger, more modern folks found too restrictive for our tastes
• said politicians still have their heads attached to their shoulders and are remarkably free of .30 caliber holes in their person

Which is to say: the voters put up with it. So they get more of it. They have given the government the power to meddle in their lives, and it shouldn't surprise them that the government abuses this power. This is a very simple law of the universe, or as Gary North would say, an example of "ethical cause and effect." The government shouldn't have 90% of the power it has in the first place, so whether they realize it or not "the people" are getting what they asked for. They didn't understand the question, and it was wrong of them to ask. I heard a quote from an economist one time, and wish I could find it again, which went something to the effect of: If you would like to know how corrupt a particular government will be, the fact which you must know is how much corruption the public will put up with just before it throws the government out and replaces it with another. Then you can be sure that this exactly how much they will get. And as another wiser man than I has said, "All that evil needs to succeed is for good men to stand by and do nothing." Which is pretty much what is going on. I guess my point is that Ben's observation, which is completely true, is the exception that proves the rule. The fact that this stuff is happening is a reflection of the fact that American has given up its limited government ways. It has culturally forgotten what big government means, and abandoned many of its former ethical beliefs in this regard. We want the meddling, just not in the particular forms we are getting. What we don't understand is that we are asking for a physical impossibility. We are trying to legislate the color of the sky, then getting hacked off when the rising sun reveals that the sky has not complied with our wishes. Politicians will always do this stuff. The question is a) will we limit their power to have a substantial effect on our lives b) will we oppose them vigorously enough to keep this garbage in check and c) will the population as a whole act with enough civility on its own that people do not turn to government to settle petty differences. All to often, the answer is negative to all of the above. All require a very strong ethic of individual responsibility to be adopted by the culture at large, which is an exceedingly rare trait. Exceptions have historically been few. It seems that modern America has slowly become, well, less than exceptional. I never meant to say that all governments are exactly what people want, only that the government is a manifestation of the properties of the people. Perhaps it is better to say that government is a function of the culture, as one thinks about a mathematical function, say government = f(culture), or something like that. The whole "f" part one could consider to be something like natural law acting on the properties of the culture variable. Ironically, I arrived at my conclusion precisely by the same route that Ben uses to criticize a particular aspect of it. Having spent a very, very long time in graduate school, and having married my wonderful Chinese wife Yu, I have had an awful lot of contact with very different cultures, especially Chinese. And like Ben, I have been shocked by how different things can be. (Also like Ben, I have experienced "boxed milk," though mine was Chinese and probably laced with melamine. It is nasty.) Like a typical American, I had always believed that people were "all basically the same." I had swallowed the equalitarian, multiculti argument hook, line, and sinker, and thought I could relate to pretty much anyone as if he were just like me. Boy, was I wrong. People are not interchangeable parts. They are not even close. There really are stark differences, and I could probably write a book on all the things I've observed. Many Americans who have not had such encounters would call it racist, but I care little of the opinions of such people. Epithets are no substitute for arguments. It became obvious to me that people's most basic assumptions about life wind up influencing their behavior so heavily that the effects cascade into gaping differences in social arrangements, including, and especially, government. Watch a Chinese movie sometime. Any Chinese movie. Watch four or five of them. I'd be willing to bet that in nearly all of them: 1) most or all of the good characters get killed by the "bad guys" and pretty much everybody winds up dead with the possible exception of the "baddest of them all" 2) somebody commits suicide 3) somebody gets brutally beaten by an authority figure 4) the bad guys win, and most importantly, 5) the message of the movie is something along the lines of "Life is hopeless. Idealists are lambs to the slaughter. Just give up." After about 10 to 15 of these suckers, I have given up on them. I have yet to see a single Chinese movie that I have liked, purely for this reason. Likewise, I've had the opinion expressed to me that all American movies are childish, naive and unrealistic. Once, after watching the movie "Stargate," it was remarked that "this is the perfect American movie. Americans go running around, find some strange people, give them guns, set them free, and have sex with them." I have been told that the Declaration of Independence is childish, immature, and completely unrealistic, and that an older, wiser, more mature civilization would know better. Anyway, I've run off on a tangent. Suffice it to say: beliefs have consequences. Culture has consequences. We as Americans or Mexicans or whatever may not have voted for all these things and outright reject a lot of what is going on, but that does not mean that we don't deserve them just the same. If we really cared enough to erect a gallows on the Capitol steps if that was what it took to keep our politicians in check, those things wouldn't happen. When this stuff happens, it can only be because the citizenry is not taking its responsibilities seriously. It is still a function of popular choice, the choice of apathy. We simply don't care that much, and we quietly acquiesce. We tolerate it, as long as we are kept relatively comfortable just the same. This is not to say that all Americans are apathetic, childishly naive navel-gazers who fantasize about sleeping with space aliens, but neither is the average Chinese Joe a nihilistic authoritarian monster. Both characterizations are ridiculous. It is to say that, taken as a whole, our two respective groups have such qualities as lead to the outcomes which we observe. We are all subject to the same universal natural laws. We don't get to pick the laws of God; we only control how we respond to them. How we act determines what outcome we produce. It is not a matter of chance, or conspiracy, as I have pointed out, as conspiracy still requires popular consent. There is simply no human force capable of overcoming the will of the masses. I do acknowledge that Ben has a very good point in saying that a lot of what goes on is not with "the people's" consent. However, I will stand by the larger argument that regardless of this all cultures have qualities that led to their respective historical and governmental situations, and if we'd like those situations to change, it is not the government we should target, it is the people themselves. Great post Ben, very thoughtful and thought provoking.