Are You a Tool of the State?

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare

Abstract:
Herein we propose a simple test to determine if you are a tool of
the state. The test also determines your reliability as a tool if
you are a tool of the state and your risk of becoming a tool if
you are not a tool of the state. This study is brought to you by
The People Advocating Truth, Responsibility, Individuality &
Opposing Tyranny (PATRIOT) advocacy group. The satisfactory completion
of the test will henceforth be referred to as a PATRIOT ACT.

Background:
One frequently encounters tools of the state in everyday life
and reads about them in numerous publications. There are other people
who act like or appear to be tools of the state but, to some degree,
are not. The first group has completely abdicated their freedom
of choice and their conscience to the state. The state is, for all
practical purposes, their operator, and they are nothing more than
automatons who carry out the state's commands. The latter are not
always tools of the state. They may actually hate the state, but
for reasons of fear or self-interest they act as tools of the state
under certain circumstances. For example, this
clerk
of the National Archives appears to be a tool of the state:

"Ask
again," he hissed, "and I will call security to remove
you from the building and have you barred as a security risk.”

The
person asking the question was Sarah Whalen, a professor at Loyola
University School of Law, researching Saudi Arabian history. But
perhaps the clerk has a wife and children to support and has been
threatened with imprisonment if he were to comply with the professor's
wishes. Perhaps he hates the state and is surreptitiously providing
documents to researchers who know a secret password. A more common
example of seeming tools of the state are the many people we see
since the invasion of Iraq driving with flags affixed to their cars.
Perhaps they have a loved one in Iraq and are attending "Bring
Them Home" rallies and the flag
on their vehicle
is just an
illogical way
of showing solidarity with their loved one. On
the other hand, if they have no loved one involved, those with newly
placed flags on their vehicles are probably tools of the state.

There
are certain special occasions when it is important to know if one
is dealing with a tool of the state. Otherwise, one might unnecessarily
place one's liberty and privacy at risk, or waste valuable time
under the impression that they are talking to a real, live, thinking
human being rather than just a tool. These times include, but are
not limited to, talking
on the telephone
, visiting the library,
and using
e-mail
on the Internet.

To
accurately assess whether or not others are tools of the state,
one must first be sure that one is not a tool of the state themselves,
or if one is, to what degree. Because becoming a tool of the state
can be an unconscious process, a process that began in early childhood,
this can be difficult to determine.

What
is needed is a simple test that can be performed with commonly available
equipment and accurately reflects whether or not one is a tool of
the state. The test should not require technical skills beyond those
possessed by the average person. While the test as described is
always preferable, one should be able to modify the test to account
for physical disability, or perform the test mentally if that is
the only option available. Below, we outline a test that should
satisfy these criteria.

Materials
and Methods:
The test involves driving a car past a stop sign
without stopping. The test subject will require a motor vehicle
in operating condition, the technical ability to drive the vehicle
and an intersection with a stop sign and good visibility (at least
mile or approximately 1 kilometer) in all directions. One competent,
reliable spotter for each direction of crossing traffic may be required.
One may substitute a traffic light for a stop sign, but this option
may require waiting for the light to turn red before one proceeds.
If a vehicle or the ability to drive is a problem, one may substitute
a bicycle or wheelchair, or simply walk. If necessary, one may perform
the experiment as a mental exercise, but in this case, honesty is
a limiting factor.

Passing
straight through stop signs without stopping is illegal in every
jurisdiction we can identify. Federal, state and local law prohibits
such activity. We assume that the state (here we refer to federal,
state, and local jurisdictions) passes such laws for the safety
of individuals who use the roadways. Therefore, if the safety of
individuals is not at issue, there is no reason to bring one's vehicle
to a halt when approaching a stop sign. Nonetheless, no jurisdiction
we can identify allows one to pass straight through a stop sign
even under these conditions. Under conditions where safety is not
an issue, blind obedience to the state would be the only reason
to slow or stop one's vehicle when approaching a stop sign. It is
noted that slowing or stopping does waste energy and time.

(Ed.
Here we anticipate certain arguments that cite precedent and the
idea that some individuals with good vision may not reliably be
able to spot a vehicle approaching on a road with adequate visibility
for mile. In response the authors would note that incompetence
or unreliability are disqualifying factors for the test, and in
any case, stupidity and incompetence are risk factors for vehicle
accidents independent of any issue of stop signs.)

To
perform the test, one simply identifies an intersection that fits
the criteria above, and during an interval when no vehicle is within
mile in any direction, drives straight through the intersection
without stopping. (Spotters are used as required.)

Analysis
and Conclusions:
Individuals can be categorized based upon the
results of their testing:

Tool
of the State — These individuals were capable, but even in the absence
of law enforcement were unable to complete the test.

Tool
UndeR Duress (TURD) — These individuals completed the test in the
absence of law enforcement, but showed obvious signs of anxiety
such as sweating, tremors, and looking behind small bushes for law
enforcement; and showed palpable relief when the test was over.

PATRIOT
(acronym previously explained) — These individuals completed the
test in the absence of law enforcement and showed obvious signs
of pride, happiness, and the sense that a burden had been lifted
from their shoulders. These individuals might at times feign being
a tool of the state for reasons of expediency or extreme coercion,
but always think and act in defense of their liberty and in opposition
to state control.

Libertarian
— These individuals didn't give a damn if law enforcement was present
or not. They completed the test without a second thought. When questioned
they responded with phrases such as, "It's no big deal."
and "Why on earth would I even consider stopping." The
state's threats and demands seemed to have no impact on the libertarians'
actions. These individuals are of no use to the state.

(Ed.
The authors note that at the time of publication a certain number
of the libertarian group have been charged under various sections
of the traffic code as well as for refusal to pay their fines. Some
are incarcerated.)

August
27, 2003

David
Wiggins [send him mail] is
a West Point (United States Military Academy) distinguished graduate
and an honors graduate of New York Medical College. He left the
Army as a Conscientious Objector resigning his commission as an
Army Captain on the Iraqi front lines during Operation Desert Storm.
He is currently an Emergency Physician.


        
        

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare
  • LRC Blog

  • LRC Podcasts