The Coming Totalitarianism

http://www.lewrockwell.com ^ | 5/6/03 | Lew Rockwell

[tpaine]

"And yet given the nature of things, we can also know that should terrorism on this scale come our way, we won't be able to rely on the federal government to help us. It will be too busy protecting its own interests as usual, escorting high officials to their mountain bunkers, and otherwise barking orders and jailing people it can get to while letting the real threats it cannot identify get away. If our families and communities are to be protected, it will be through private efforts, including the work of armed civilians, the very people demonized way back when.
This raises the question of what the feds really hope to accomplish."

Some here at FR say that Lew is off the deep end.. I say the above is a good question.

[Jim Robinson]

He's a crackpot.

[Lysander]

...the question of what the feds really hope to accomplish.

Keeping themselves safe and crowd control seems to be the orders of the day.

[js1138]

Yup.

[Dead Corpse]

Lew did fall off the deep end. Occassionally, he does get bits of some things right, but mostly he'll ruin any favorable impression before the end of the same paragraph. Yes, armed civilians would be a huge deterrent. Yes, we should all prepare in our own ways for worst case scenarios.

does this mean that the government should not do the same?

The guy has gotten more than a little bit paranoid. Must be listening to Alex Jones again...

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Heimland Securität: ANTI-TERROR ÜBER ALLES

[Psycho_Bunny]

Any whack job can come up with a "good question" now and again.

[asformeandformyhouse]

Yes, it's a good question. And it's exactly the kind that a true 'homeland security' would be answering. Time will tell.

[freeforall]

Libertarianism is comprised of one and only one belief: that no person
should *initiate* coercive physical force - the non-agression
principle. However, Libertarianism was purposely designed (by its
founding leaders, including Murray Rothbard, and leaders like Walter
Block) NOT to have any particular code of ethics: it eschews the
making of moral judgments, of any code of right and wrong, embracing
SOLELY the idea that if the non-aggression principle is followed, no
evil can be done. Libertarianism, consequently, has no single answer
to the question: "*Why* should individuals be free"? Rather, the
Libertarian movement boldly asserts the propriety of freedom and
boldly repels the adoption of any particular justification for it,
leaving each Libertarian to have his own justification...or not to
have one at all.
Libertarianism was designed as an umbrella concept for any person who
believes, ultimately, that *the state* (not-*statism*) is the enemy of
freedom (a separate point: libertarians are not united in their
understanding of what it means to be free...as demonstrated by the
conversation in mant threads). Libertarianism, in a nutshell, is
anti-state, which gives rise to common sayings among Libertarians such
as "the best government is no government at all". Being an anti-state
organization allows a Libertarian party to attract a wide variety of
people: anarchists, capitalists, anarcho-syndicalists, even socialists
who want some form of socialism that doesn't involve the state. You
will find them all in a sufficiently large meeting of Libertarians. A
simple search on google will demonstrate all of the stratification
within the Libertarian movement. And, from all I have seen,
attracting a large number of people is the Libertarian movement's
whole reason for eschewing a code of right and wrong.

[pupdog]

Any whack job can come up with a "good question" now and again.

But if this thread is any example, actually answering it without resulting to name-calling is significantly more difficult.

[RonF]

Faced with a growing sense that the greatest threat to our security was not the private terrorist but the public bureaucrat, local militias began to be formed. They consisted of men, mostly in the working class, gathering and drilling with legally owned weapons, making plans for defending their communities in the event of some sort of government imposition.

Is this true? I was under the impression that local militias were organized under the authority of local government, not private citizens. Am I wrong?

[JohnGalt]

If 19 illiterate Arabs could outwit the central intelligence aparatus, let alone the questionable display of courage at Columbine, I'd say the gig is up and Lew's point: "The drill serves to remind the civilian population of precisely who is in charge" is better understood in that context.

I mean what was Waco, except an attempt to correct the bad publicity from Ruby Ridge. And what was the OKC Bombing but a fumbled attempt for a prime-time bust to correct that bad publicity from Waco...oh nevermind, I am one of those Internet kooks...

[OPS4]

The government has always been intrusive when it has the opportunity to do so. Remember the storm troopers in Chicago during the civil disobedience of the 60's and 70's,
or when students were shot at Kent State? Or when our
when Elian was treated worst than a terrorist?

The troops have been used in many cases over the history of our nation, now they have selective names and agencies and operate more like covert operations, but that has been going on forever.

The citizens of this country always get pushed to the brink and then they react.

Clinton was allowing foreign troops and illegal activitites,
to rule america for 8 years, and we all wanted him hung for treason.

Bush comes in and begins the clean up of this mess, becomes more isolationist, as many hear wanted, and now the government responds by pushing forth a great effort to
control more of the game to make sure the clinton years
dont return, and now we are all squemish.

The answer my friends is not blowin in the wind, the fact is
a utopian government has never and will never exist.

It is a constant struggle to reach a status quo let alone
a utopian society.

Until the lord Himself comes and creates Utopia, the struggle will continue, so lets get behind less government
while we have control of the white house as republicans, and then if GW is not there and a dem gets in, we will have to make sure that easing back on the push for less of a
totalitarian state, does not get integrated, with Communist
operatives, who want a government, of equal need, for world control.
Ops4 God BLess America!

[Dead Corpse]

Militia's could be requested at the local level, but the call up had to come from the governor.

[tpaine]

Yes, armed civilians would be a huge deterrent. Yes, we should all prepare in our own ways for worst case scenarios.
does this mean that the government should not do the same?
-DC-


Sure, but seeing the threat is this serious, what is the role of our militia?
I see no effort to organize or to equip, as per the Israli or Swiss model.

[tpaine]

Is this true? I was under the impression that local militias were organized under the authority of local government, not private citizens. Am I wrong?
-ron-


I see nothing wrong with either option. Do you?

[Dead Corpse]

Sure, but seeing the threat is this serious, what is the role of our militia? I see no effort to organize or to equip, as per the Israli or Swiss model.

And you probably won't either. Write your congress critter and see if they latch on to the idea.

[kezekiel]

If 19 illiterate Arabs...

They were hardly illiterate, nor were (are) their leadership in Al Qaeda. Many of them were college educated professionals. Perhaps that's the problem... even when we know they're not "illiterate," we go on underestimating them.

[joesnuffy]

Is this true? I was under the impression that local militias were organized under the authority of local government, not private citizens. Am I wrong? Yes n No Local govt. was what?...local therefore somewhere somehow it was organized...probably by the largest property owner (s) former military those naturally deposed to lead plan and execute action Private citizens probably church members were the first govt. loosely organized around their common needs. probably defense against predators of the two legged and four legged variety ..fires,...drought....illness...selling of mutual commodities..and pulling security for each oter...meeting each others needs in a mutal dependency yet mostly idependent and autonomous When militas were needed against Indians, French, British, and even the Feds...they were formed and armed around the church imo

[palmer]

The feds have a problem with it. "Militia" is keyword in background investigations for security clearances. The website (somewhere under www.dss.mil, I forgot where) says that militias are considered a potential threat to the federal government and treated with suspicion.