Do you know i have been thinking that today;I have always known the government was currupt because thats part the reason the war my great great great grandfather fought in. My mom always told me the south was right and not about slaves but about The south was fighting against the very same thing thats happening today. I Read ron paul spoke out on this and explained the same way she always did. Really I'm gonna start listening to him. But dont u think the Union will try and take us if this happens? I have a feeling RP wont be president because of this. I wonder why the NDAA and SOPA Law was passed? Do u think it was incase ron paul supporters would get a little rough fix this so people cant keep intouch and if ron paul supporters stood up to the government that they could arrest us under the NDAA law? LOL I might be sounding like a conspiracy theorist now lol but i have been thinking a lot.
Hey there,
Sorry I couldn't reply sooner, but I hope this letter will make up for the delay.
I'm delighted to hear that you've been giving this some thought. There is nothing more important in democracy than people thinking critically about their government.
You raise a great point about the Civil War. It's pretty amazing that your great-great-great grandfather fought in that war. Where is your family from? Do you know how many generations you've been in America for?
I'm not a scholar of the Civil War, but here's my thinking on it...
In a way, the South had the right idea, but the wrong policies; the North, the right policies, but sowed the seeds of a dangerous idea. The Confederate states wanted the freedom to continue living as they had, including owning slaves; the Union states fought to keep the union together and in order to emancipate blacks, who were American citizens. If the South had won, the Confederate states' governments would have been free, but most of their people -- blacks and poor whites -- would have been repressed. Because the North won, all American citizens got to be free, but it laid the groundwork for much greater Federal intrusion into state governments' affairs and individual citizens' lives.
For the last hundrend years, and especially in the last 40 years, the federal government of the United States has been assuming a greater and greater role in the affairs of the states and individuals. The justification for this is that the federal goverment has to force the states to do the right thing -- federal law overriding state law -- and essentially to protect people from the consequences of their own decisions -- social welfare, health care, etc.
In some cases there has been strong justification for this intrusion on states' and individuals affairs, but even where the Federal Government is right to intervene, there need to be limits on what it can and can't do to achieve its goal, and people tend to gloss over these limits if they believe in changing society through activism.
One of the most persuasive examples of the Federal Government getting involved in states' affairs is the Civil Rights Act (1964), which was a huge win for blacks and other minorities, and was probably necessary in order to undo generations of discriminatory legislation. But we have to remember that a lot of the institutionalised racism in the Deep South was a product of legislation, and that legislation was a product of special interests (big business and land owners) who profited from a system that discriminated against blacks and poor whites. It's often neglected that many whites in the Deep South were also denied the right to vote (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_United_States), so the racist institutions that were dismantled in the 1960s kept down many poor whites too. Unfortunately, it seems, many poor whites supported the policies that exploited them because they were fooled into thinking that by keeping blacks below them in status, it protected their interests.
At any rate, the success of various campaigns in the 1960s (civil rights, education reform, social welfare) in bringing about social change through the government gave rise to a belief that we can engineer a perfect world through legislation. This is a utopian fantasy, and whenever the government expands and extends its reach, it makes people poorer and less able to care for themselves. Actually that's not quite right: it makes the rich richer, the impoverished a little more comfortable, and the middle class poorer and more dependent. For example, when Russia's became a free market economy, many people struggled with their new-found freedom and wished for a return to communism, even though it had just failed.
Nevertheless, people who believe in this fantasy of the Big Brother government have the best of intentions, but giving the government the power to create a perfect world means giving the government the power to punish that which "we" dislike, and reward that which "we" approve of.
But who are "we"? Who are the people that the government listens to?
At first, "we" are the majority of voters, because politicians will enact laws that will win them the most votes. This is is dangerous because the majority often seeks to discriminate against a minority. In many countries there are large ethnic minorities that are routinely abused -- in Malaysia it is Chinese and Indians, in Japan it is ethnic Koreans, in America it used to be blacks. (Looking at the disproportionate rates of arrest and conviction, some blacks still do suffer from discrimination, but that's a separate discussion)
This discrimination against or persecution of a minority at the behest of a majority is known as the tyranny of the majority.
Even more dangerously, the tyranny of the majority gives small groups of ambitious people a powerful incentive to gain access to the corridors of power. And when these people either get themselves into power or convince politicians to do their bidding, then "we" are no longer the majority of the people, but "we" become the people who agree with those in power. And those in power, because they are not acting in the interests of most people, then have a great need to convince most people that their government is doing a good job.
So now we have a situation where politicians intensely interested in influencing what is talked about in the media, and what is not talked about. The best way of pulling the wool over people's eyes is to ensure that certain things are routinely said in the main-stream media, and certain things are avoided in debates.
Take for example the reporting on crime. The rates of violent crime in America have been dropping in most places quite steadily since the early 90s, but if you turn on the news not a day goes by without a story that gives the impression that America is getting more violent.
Contrast that with the Carnegie Medal for bravery, awarded to people who risk their lives for complete strangers. So many people are nominated for this award that the Carnegie institute can't afford to award them all.
http://www.carnegiehero.org/herofund.php
But as long as people are afraid of crime, even if they are not affected by it, they will support policies that promise to protect them. These policies eventually give the police the power to invade your privacy and arrest you on flimsy or even fictitious charges. This is already happening with the National Defence Authorisation Act. The NDAA allows the military to arrest an American citizen on the *suspicion* of terrorism; it doesn't need evidence, it just needs to *suspect* you of being involved in terrorist activity. And once you're arrested, your family can't find out where you are, and you will most likely be tortured.
I don't think the NDAA was passed specifically in order to repress Ron Paul supporters and other libertarians, but the government has already exercised terrifying force against the Occupy Wall Street protesters, and if Ron Paul's movement should become big enough to worry people in government, the same police brutality will be directed at it too.
It's funny to think you sound like a conspiracy theorist. It's one thing to believe that there is a small group of people running the world from a boardroom; it's another thing to look at what's happening around you and begin to question it.
I sometimes wonder what it was like for people in Germany in the 1930s, as the Nazis were voted into power and then began to strip away people's rights. Most of the Jews in Germany left before 1939 -- they knew what was happening and what was about to happen, and some Christian Germans could see it too. What was it like to see what everyone else was blind to?
I've been working in computers for the last few years, and I understand better than most how easy it would be for a determined government to spy on its citizens. Most personal computers are vulnerable to attack and most smart phones (especially iPhones) already transmit your whereabouts to a central database. If the CIA wanted to force Apple to hand over the information it had about you, it wouldn't take more than a couple of hours (or even minutes) for those in power to have access to your personal data, your email, and pretty much all of your personal information. The good news is that it probably won't happen to you, but the fact of the matter is that if a government wanted to do that, it would be terrifyingly easy for it to do so.
I suppose I could go on for quite a bit on this topic, but I think you get the idea.
No comments:
Post a Comment