Fellow Americans:
As much as it may be proclaimed, the United States is not a (pure) democracy. The United States is a constitutionally limited republic. What is the difference? A democracy has no inherently consistent rule of law due to the fact that a majority of the electorate can manipulate the law at will. For instance, if a majority decided to abandon the right to bear arms in a true democracy,
everyone would be required to surrender their weapons. On the other hand, a constitutionally limited republic puts in place a supreme, guiding piece of legislation at its inception that is meant to mitigate the tyranny of a majority.
Thomas Jefferson has been credited with saying:
"Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%."
To the dismay of the intentions of the founders, the united States of America has found itself mired in a tyrannical dilemma stemming from this very phenomenon. The events that transpired in the fall of 2001 led to an aura of fear on which the central government capitalized. Through this fear, a large portion of Americans were convinced that civil liberties should be sacrificed for the sake of security, even though a person is more likely to die from a lighting strike than from a terrorist strike. As a result, the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution has been trampled upon by the demagogues that occupy positions of power.
The Fourth Amendment reads:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. [emphasis added]
The legislation dubbed the PATRIOT Act laid the foundation for a police state. Drunk with terror, the legislature (and many Americans) surrendered the Fourth Amendment rights on behalf of the entire population. Although this is constitutionally forbidden, thus far, the tyranny of the majority has dominated discussion and legislation. Any person that has speculated openly about the breadth of the police state in America has been branded as a "conspiracy theorist," an unpatriotic loon, a paranoid enemy of the state, etc. - until now.
Now, it is public knowledge that the President has the ability to kill American citizens at his discretion using a secret protocol; the National Defense Authorization Act allows citizens to be detained indefinitely without charge; the intelligence arm of the central government records the phone numbers, duration, and location of
every call made in the united States; the information held by major internet companies such as Google, Yahoo, and Facebook is also subject to government intrusion; the press is subject to intimidation if true investigative journalism is pursued; and who knows how much deeper the rabbit hole may be. This is likely the tip of the iceberg.
It is clear that the central government has no respect for the limits imposed upon it by the Constitution. With the dragnet style collection of data, it is apparent that "particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" has gone out the window. Further, one must worry about the once protected freedom of speech as well, not only due to the government's spying on the press, but also the fear that can be associated with "big brother" listening, which tends to stifle dissent.
Some may say, "I don't have anything to hide. Let them listen." Here, we return to the tyranny of the majority. Some people may wish to abandon their own rights in hopes of gaining security, but in this republic, those people cannot (constitutionally) sacrifice the rights of others - even by the dictate of majority opinion.
Benjamin Franklin astutely said:
"He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security."
Sacrificing liberties to hedge against the extremely improbable demise of dieing by a terrorist act is as foolish as allowing the government to occupy your home in order to protect you against household accidents (which would arguably save more lives than the latter approach). It's time to allow the fear to subside and to deal with America's problems on a rational basis.
Imagine that you had a neighbor who routinely showed up at your house unannounced. Further, he didn't even knock. The man would just walk in and help himself to your food, brush his teeth with your toothbrush, and leave brown streaks in your commode. Under normal circumstances, you would rightfully expel this intruder (by force if necessary), but suppose this man is the governor of the state in which you live. Every time you call the police, no action is taken. Over time, a feeling of helplessness grows as does your ire for this man. Would you eventually resort to violence against him, or would you continue to cower indefinitely?
The central government of the united States dirties the toilets of nations all around the world on a daily basis. Military bases can be found in nearly every country, blood is ruthlessly spilled on foreign soils (even that of u.S. "allies" such as Pakistan) by CIA directed drones, negotiations with dissenting nations are headed off by the u.S. declaring that the other party must agree with all of its major points before the "negotiation" can ever happen, sanctions are used to starve common people while targeted governments continue to persist, and due to the power and influence wielded by the u.S., other nations are helpless against its intrusion.
Diplomacy is on life support, and the u.S. continues to bully, murder, and terrorize the rest of the world in an analogous fashion as the overbearing neighbor that was described previously. This behavior is at the root of terrorism, and levying more wars will only worsen the problem of asymmetric warfare (a.k.a. terrorism) against the u.S.
The only way to solve America's problems (with terrorism) is to deconstruct the empire - to bring the troops home. Ratcheting up "Policemen of the World" tactics will only worsen the problem. Foreigners are tired of their overbearing neighbor. Similarly, many Americans are becoming tired of the police state.
It is the nature of power lust that political supporters champion their leaders' actions that would be deplored if done by opposing factions. For instance, the actions of the Bush Administration were loudly decried by social liberals while many have come to the defense of the same actions that have been expanded by the Obama administration. In the same fashion, the targeting of groups on the political right by the IRS brought joy to many democrats while similar targeting of groups on the left would have likely drawn joy to some on the right. Case in point, the government should be limited.
Henry David Thoreau begins his great work
Civil Disobedience with the passage:
I heartily accept the motto, — "That government is best which governs least."
What was true then should be blatantly true in today's environment. Expanding government only serves to expand problems. Government is, most simply, a tool of force used by those who wield its power. Over the years, there have been many groups who believed that they had the market cornered on the correct political philosophy, and given the opportunity to rule, they have employed the use of government force to extort (and sometimes murder) the populace in attempts to implement their plans to achieve utopia. It will always be true that the government cannot give what it first does not take, and that when it does take, it gets the first slice of the pie.
Frederic Bastiat once said:
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
What happens when there's nothing left to take? Just as a gadget maker would quit making gadgets if they were stolen on the whole regularly, the people of a nation will become unproductive as the government grows to such an extent that it takes nearly the entire fruits of one's labor to support it. No matter the good intentions behind big government, it will eventually bankrupt any nation both financially and morally.
Eventually, the government will have secret interpretations of the law that are executed in secret and are reviewed by secret courts because not doing so would harm national security in ways that can't be discussed with the public because they are secret - just like it has become in the united States of America. Then, with all the secrecy, when a little dab gets exposed, such as spying on every phone call in the entire nation, the supreme leader will say, "If you can't trust us, we're going to have some problems," similar to what Obama had to say here:
Like I have heard all my life, "I was born at night, but it wasn't last night," or, "Momma didn't raise no fool," or, "Never trust a politician," I think all of them apply here. Be vigilant America. In practice, Republicans are the same as Democrats. The labels only exist to make possible broad enough rhetoric to keep the people content and every once in a while give them the feeling that "their man" is in power. It is all an illusion.
Again citing Jefferson:
"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."
Be weary my friends. The time to rein in the state has come, and there may be rough waters ahead.
Sincerely,
Derrel Walters
P.S. I do not capitalize "united" in united States in honor of the way it was printed on the Declaration of Independence.
