Eric S. Raymond is an Anarchist. He reviews the history of the 20th Century, deciding that even the United States Constitution isn't enough protection for individual liberties:
The Founding Fathers of the United States thought they had found a way to successfully head off the degeneration of governments into pathological monstrosities: ensure that the people remain armed, and teach them that it is part of their duty as free citizens to check the arrogance of government — by threat of armed revolt or by actual revolution, if need be. Thomas Jefferson would have asked why the Jews and Gypsies of Germany allowed themselves to be disarmed by Nazi gun-confiscation laws without rising in revolt — and, more pointedly, why the soi-disant civilized nations of the world did not see the confiscation of civilian weapons as a sure harbinger of the Holocaust to come.
[....]
I am left with the bleak conclusion that no attempt to hold the arrogance of government in check will work — because a majority of the people themselves are too easily seduced into abandoning their own institutional protections against tyranny by the false promises and poisonous dreams of statist propaganda.
That is why I am an anarchist.
Mr. Raymond, I must respectfully dissent. I believe your analysis misses three important points.
First, a policy of Anarchism is national suicide, which will inevitably lead to denial of the individual rights we enjoy in America. Too many nation-states in the world today would be only too happy to conquer the United States by force. Some would be motivated to expropriate our wealth. Some would simply like to enslave the people, whether for economic or religious reasons. Others simply see American success as an unacceptable proof that their own philosophies and beliefs don't provide universal Truth in some way. We really do need "governments...to preserve...[our] rights."
Second, he doesn't put appropriate weight on four events in late 20th-Century American history: Ruby Ridge, the Waco Siege, the Oklahoma City bombing, and the Montana Freemen standoff. At Ruby Ridge, an assault by Federal agents on an isolationist family led to deaths on both sides, and the target of the raid (Randy Weaver) was eventually acquitted of the underlying charge by a jury. At Waco, Federal agents tried to raid the compound of a fanatic religious group--but the group stopped the assault by shooting and killing several agents. Federal agents eventually assaulted the compound with military vehicles and chemical weapons, but the resulting fire led to widespread criticism and outrage. Timothy McVeigh was motivated to bomb the Murrah Federal Building as revenge for Ruby Ridge and Waco.
But when they came to arrest the Montana Freemen, Federal agents took their time and managed to make the arrests without violence or deaths. Federal agents got the message; it's simply not a good idea to ride roughshod over Americans. Even though the Federal agent killer of Randy Weaver's wife didn't go to prison, and the surviving agents responsible for Waco didn't lose their jobs, Federal police tactics became much more respectful of American individuals--even obvious criminals.
Third, early-20th Century Germany did not separate church and state. Catholic church officials were nominated by the Vatican, but their names were approved by the German government and their salaries were supported by tax money. This structural collusion between the Vatican and the German government meant that the Church was dissuaded from criticizing government policy. It ensured that German government ideas and propaganda weren't easily challenged in the open marketplace of ideas.
In contrast, the Framers of the United States Constitution wanted to keep the government from concentrating either the power to shape public opinion (First Amendment) or the power to force public compliance (Second Amendment).
The First and Second Amendments are both necessary to restrain government: The First amendment makes sure there are competing voices in the marketplace of ideas, accessible to many individuals. The Second Amendment makes sure that once individuals make up their minds about a public policy, they can make their decisions stick in the face of raw government power--or at least greatly increase the cost in blood and treasure for the government to crush the individuals.
Bottom line: I believe it's safe and appropriate to be an Individualist in the United States.
Update 5 July 2008: please seetwo more reasons suggested by comments at Kim du Toit's Geopoliticus blog.
0 comments:
Post a Comment