[116652] in Cypherpunks
Re: Freedom's
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Secret Squirrel)
Tue Aug 17 09:23:48 1999
Date: 17 Aug 1999 13:05:22 -0000
From: Secret Squirrel <secret_squirrel@nym.alias.net>
Message-ID: <29171362b1021d85fa7d8ef684d17899@anonymous>
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Reply-To: Secret Squirrel <secret_squirrel@nym.alias.net>
On Wed, 11 Aug 1999 00:13:18 -0700,
Tim May <tcmay@got.net> wrote:
> I had an interesting discussion with a gun store owner
> whose son is a current CHP (California Highway Patrol)
> officer. Seems that the CHP is well aware of the fact
> that the huge increase in numbers of laws and in
> severity of punishment has made it more likely that a
> formerly routine traffic stop will result in gunfire.
De Toqueville, I think it was, made a similar observation
about Czarist Russia, that the severe penalties for
things like robbery gave criminals an incentive to kill
their victims to eliminate witnesses, resulting in a far
more dangerous environment than would otherwise have
resulted from the mere presence and activity of robbers.
Unintended consequences. The history of "modern" government
is a litany of unintended consequences. It is probably
inevitable that someone(s), somtime(s) will take steps to
visit the consequences on those responsible. With all the
former highly-trained specialists now at large, every one
of whom as sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution,
it's amazing that the statistical probability of their
awakening hasn't already manifested itself in a skewing
of the accidental mortality rates of certain vocations.
> Might as well just blow the cops away if they stop
> you near a school or hospital.
Certainly some may find themselves facing that course as
a result of stupid laws and "I'm just following orders"
enforcers. It's a senseless end, though, when prior
steps can avoid it, and brings the consequences home to
the lowest, non-policy level of the statist establishment.
If those who might find themselves in that position were
instead to do a little research and direct their
individual attentions to the sources of the problem, their
risk would be no worse, and could turn the problem around.
In the end, the policy makers will sacrifice any number
of police officers to get what they want. They are also
exquisitely adept at milking all the PR value possible
from such losses, while privately celebrating the fortuitous
opportunites so afforded them. There's a reason the horse's
head was not placed in the housekeeper's bed.
I'm waiting for libertarians to wake up to the fact that
force has already been initiated. I'm afraid that the
armchair libertarians wish to avoid facing that
uncomfortable truth and where it inevitably leads, for
as long as they can continue fooling themselves.
> Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose.
That's one way of looking at it, but not the only way.
Clearly, though, a species of creature that fights to
the death, if and when necessary, to preserve its
freedom will exact a terrible toll on those who would
take its freedom. It's hard on the individual putting
up a fight, but good for the species or group. Try
domesticating a zebra and see how far you get.
> (Applicability to crypto and killing the crypto
> regulators left as an exercise. I hear that some
> radicals think that hundreds of thousands in the
> U.S. have already earned the death penalty and that
> lists of those to be liquidated are already being
> prepared. Gee.)
No doubt. No doubt at all. I don't, however, have much
confidence in the intelligence, courage or commitment
of the majority of folks inclined to draw up lists and
circulate them. The real threat to the statists does
not lie in groups of joiners and mutual spine stiffeners.
It lies in capable individuals, of whom there are at
least tens of thousands, waking up on their own and
taking quiet action on their own. If even 100 former
Navy Seals were to wake up and take their oaths seriously,
never knowing of or contacting each other, they could
seriously weed the garden and only the actuaries would
have a clue. Their greatest problem would be funding
their field trips. There is no defense against such
an eventuality. There is also no other effective course,
apparently. Words have proven ineffective against those
who are utterly devoid of principle.
"In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned
for Redress in the most humble terms. Our repeated
Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury.
A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act
which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of
a free people."
At least two detailed calls to action have been published
in recent decades: Revolt in 2100, by Heinlein, and
Unintended Consequences, by Ross. Heinlein, writing in
a time that required couching his message in the plush
upholstery of fiction, nonetheless spelled out a
strategy of statistically weeding the statist garden.
Ross, writing in a time of in-your-face confrontationalism,
named the BATF in his political treatise thinly disguised
as fiction. Both should be required reading.
Even as the advance of the state is accelerating and all
Constitional limits seem to have been tossed to the wind,
it is also the case that awareness and advocacy of the
rich tapestry of freedom articulated by the Founders has
never been greater. It's a no-brainer that this is a
formula for collision and crisis. The state is pushing
the individual harder and harder, while more and more
individuals, for unrelated reasons, are becoming aware
of the issues. It only takes 3-5% of the population
feeling they have nothing left to lose to make for
serious events and change, far less if some specialists
take up the cause.
The battle of words is clearly a losing one. Force has
already been initiated by governments at all levels, and
on an institutional basis, not just in "isolated
incidents." No longer is kicking in the doors of innocent
people an issue for the establishment - explaining away
the mistakes is the only issue. No longer is there any
question that gun confiscation and prohibition is coming -
it is already happening in Kalifornia and is a done deal
in Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
Free, armed, self-supporting, non-parasitic people are
the new Jews, demonized, blamed, and castigated for the
errors and failed policies of the vote-buyers. Absent
corrective action, the future is now depressingly clear.
Sam Adams advised "keep your own counsel." That meant,
keep your decisions and plans to yourself and don't look
to others to validate and reinforce your views and
conclusions. To be sure there is a role for those who
call attention to the deeds and identities of the
malefactors, but that role does not well mix with that
of rectifying the situation. The former communicate to
the latter by publishing; the latter cannot be seen nor
heard, only felt.
TruthMonger
