Celebrating the Rule of Force, Not Freedom
by
William L. Anderson
by William L. Anderson
DIGG THIS
One often can
write news stories by the calendar, and today is not an exception.
This is Memorial Day, and we are going to hear the rhetoric about
honoring those who "died fighting for our freedom." Indeed,
Americans might be honoring the dead from U.S. wars, but in no case
did any of those dead whom we memorialize today die for "our
freedom." They died, instead, because our political classes
pointedly understand that promoting war is good for them.
I realize this
is a statement that will bring anger. Those people who have lost
loved ones in one of many U.S. conflicts will be angry because my
statement insinuates that these mostly-young people died for a Big
Lie. Others who have not been directly touched by one of our many
wars simply want to believe that the United States of America is
a shining beacon of freedom, and we need to protect that freedom
from those who would take it away.
One wishes
it were that simple. Yes, the rhetoric is powerful, and the snapshots
of Americans at the graves of the fallen present vivid images of
what it means to suffer loss, and no one wants to believe that a
loss was in vain. Humans yearn for purpose, and it should not surprise
us that people would seek purpose in the deaths of comrades and
loved ones.
No doubt, there
will be speech after speech by people declaring that these losses
were tragic, but necessary, as the U.S Armed Forces are the last
line of defense against those who would take away our beloved freedoms.
That is the biggest lie of all. Forces from outside this country
do not threaten our freedom, but forces inside do.
Let us begin
with the small things and work to the larger issues. Many of us
will be traveling on the highways, and the Memorial Day Weekend
always brings out that show of force from state troopers. We can
expect to see many motorists having their weekends ruined because
they drove a few miles above the speed limit, or state troopers
or local police are looking for a "big score" in finding
drugs inside a vehicle.
I am not sure
about the readers, but I cannot say I ever have felt "protected"
by the presence of state police on the highway. They do not exist
to "protect" us; they are there because Memorial Day Weekend
is a big revenue time for the various agencies that receive money
from fines. In other words, it is a grand time for the police to
be shaking down individual drivers.
In Maryland,
state police are trained from the beginning to regard motorists
as scum. One friend of mine, a local police officer, was recruited
by the state police, and the recruiter made this statement: "Why
work on the farm when you can own it." Indeed, these officers
are taught that the rest of us who do not wear the uniform of the
Maryland State Police are simply servants on their plantation, and
they treat us as such.
We look next
at the court systems. For the past year, I have been part of a fight
against the State of North Carolina, which falsely accused three
Duke University students of rape, kidnapping, and sexual assault.
From the beginning, everyone knew the charges were lies, but agents
representing the state pushed forward not because they had truth
on their side, but because they could do it. Michael Nifong and
the Durham police did this because they had the power to do it.
When one realizes
that Nifong really is not an outlier but rather an integral part
of the system, the entire picture is better focused. There is a
reason that the United States of America has more than two million
individuals in prison. This country is the world leader in that
department, with both the highest number of prisoners and the highest
per capita incarceration rate.
To put it another
way, those foreigners whom we so greatly fear are not as adept at
taking away the freedoms of their citizens as the various governments
in this country are at taking the freedoms of people living here.
That is a most sobering thought. One of the fastest growth industries
in the USA is prison construction – which also is the case in American-ruled
Iraq.
For travelers
going through airports, one constantly is reminded that the Transportation
Security Administration inspectors are to be obeyed absolutely,
for even a disapproving glance can result in the charge of "Interfering
with the Duties of a Federal Officer," with the penalties for
such an offense being up to 20 years in federal prison. It seems
that government officials are a greater threat to the freedom of
air travelers than anyone from al-Qaeda.
Representatives
of government regularly threaten the lives and freedoms of people
whose only offense either is sitting in one’s home (the threat of
no-knock raids being quite real) or doing one’s job. I have sitting
on my desk the details of indictments brought by federal officials
against a young man with a wife and young children for pursuing
normal activities in his job as an electricity trader. The government-inflicted
electricity crisis in California and the implosion of Enron made
traders enticing targets by ambitious federal prosecutors, so the
feds seek to destroy families and take away individual freedoms
just so they can satisfy the political classes.
Then there
is the military culture itself. Many military veterans receive preferential
hiring treatment from "law enforcement" and other government
entities. The "always obey orders" mentality means that
they not trained in making moral choices, but instead are the well-trained
enforcers of the political classes – and most of them relish being
in a role in which they can tell others to obey – or face arrest
or even death.
There also
exists this knotty problem of the U.S. Government imposing the will
of members of this country’s political classes upon people in other
countries. The people of Iraq knew full well what that means, as
do people in Serbia and elsewhere one might see U.S. soldiers in
uniform. The U.S. political classes hold that U.S. law spans the
globe, and anyone who harms or might even seek to harm a U.S. agent
– no matter where that agent might be – is violating U.S. law and
can be tried and punished in this country. One does not have to
think very hard to realize the ramifications of that policy.
In the process
of imposing the will of the U.S. political classes around the world,
individuals die. Young people have fallen in Iraq and elsewhere,
and we remember the hundreds of thousands who have died in other
conflicts. It is a sad and solemn thing to see these dead memorialized,
but it makes me even sadder when I realize that most, if not all,
of these deaths were unnecessary to protect our own freedoms.
If anything,
the aggressive U.S. foreign policy that has existed since the end
of World War II threatens our freedoms more than any foreign government.
As people around the world fight back, our own political classes
respond by taking away our rights and freedoms one-by-one, all in
the name of "protecting freedom."
I know these
are harsh words, and they sting even more for the people who have
lost loved ones in wars overseas. My point is neither to denigrate
them nor to criticize those who memorialize them. Instead, I would
ask the simple question: Which American freedoms are the soldiers
protecting?
Then, I would
ask one more question: What are the freedoms we have lost? Readers
of this page know the answers to both questions.
Although I
have pointed this column at the use of American military personnel
around the globe, I also need to make another point: many of the
politicians who now decry the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan want
to make war on the rest of us. Listen to the rhetoric of people
like Hillary Clinton, Dennis Kucinich, and John Edwards as they
both attack the war and attack productive people in this country.
The fervor is the same. Productive Americans are portrayed as being
as great an enemy as Osama bin Laden.
(I add that
Ron Paul is the only U.S. Presidential candidate who is campaigning
for freedom. The others just want to take the same force this country
uses against other people and use it against Americans who do not
obey every dictum of the state.)
We hear them
say we must "make war on dependence upon foreign oil,"
or a "war against Big Oil," or a "New War on Poverty."
The rhetoric always is the same: war on someone.
So,
by all means memorialize our war dead. But while we memorialize
them, let us not glorify the wars that placed them in those graves,
and let us not glorify the rhetoric that glories in the destruction
of freedom – while at the same time claiming to be "protecting"
our liberties.
May
28, 2007
William
L. Anderson, Ph.D. [send him
mail], teaches economics at Frostburg State University in Maryland,
and is an adjunct scholar of the Ludwig
von Mises Institute.
Copyright
© 2007 LewRockwell.com
William
Anderson Archives
|