 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When the unconstitutional, non-declared "war against terrorism" ratcheted into higher gear and American forces attacked Afghanistan with cruise missiles and bombers, the burial of other freedom-related issues in this country was a convenient side-effect. Having such real problems buried beneath the onslaught of blinkered patriotism and flag-waving propaganda, however, is not a development to be applauded.
Money is flowing freely from the vaults of Washington, D.C., while unfavored people are dying in ways that suggest that any "victory" in this conflict will be, at best, a Pyrrhic one. The State is generous with your money and reckless with your lives.
This is not a good combination.
The stock market last autumn gave a good imitation of the plummeting World Trade Center towers when it crashed the week after it reopened. A trillion dollars or so of paper wealth disappeared as investors unloaded unwanted stocks and shifted their money to other, more defense-oriented industries. While prices have rallied since then, many people are still antsy about the market's stability.
Already in trouble, the airlines squawked that they could not survive the State-mandated shutdown without a bailout. Congress obliged with direct gifts and the offer of subsidized loans to make up for the tens of billions in revenue the national carriers failed to earn. Some of those airlines took that money then proceeded to layoff workers, anyway.
Questions of why the largesse for airlines and not for other businesses such as hotels, restaurants, and travel agencies that also suffered in the aftermath of the WTC attack were deflected with the statement that the airlines are a "vital" industry necessary for "national defense." Of course, none of the officials or commentators advancing this line of argument bothered to point out either the Constitutional authority for such a de facto nationalization of the airlines or why individual citizens should support such a collectivistic notion.
In the present atmosphere of "don't bring up such issues now," I suppose I should hang my head in shame for questioning the wisdom of increased State power.
Perhaps I should. But I won't.
When we had cases of anthrax striking people in various states; when we have troops venturing into the primitive realms of Asia and now the Phillipines; when men in uniform patrol our airports and guard our highways; when we hear daily reports and analyses dissecting possibilities for expanded war and the specter of chemical/biological/nuclear terrorism; when such horrors, real or imagined, sprinkle down upon us, it would be easy to hold my tongue, to "overlook" government abuses, to wiggle into the darkness safe from prying governmental eyes.
National ID cards? Racial profiling? Homeland Defense Agency? Roving wiretaps? Carnivore links to ISPs? Illegal searches and seizures? Secret courts and secret evidence? Indefinite detentions? Loss of free speech? Torture of prisoners?
Mute the criticism. Hunker down. Don't draw attention. Be patriotic.
Shut up.
The danger of opposing the omnipotent state (borrowing from a book title by Ludwig von Mises) is not theoretical. President John Adams jailed his critics. Abraham Lincoln did not hesitate locking up his opponents. Woodrow Wilson sought draconian punishments for those who dared resist his warlike policies. Challenging FDR and World War II did not make friends for defenders of liberty and proponents of nonintervention. Nixon and Clinton maintained their enemies lists.
How soon before the present administration begins forcing ISPs to pull websites that fail to march to the official tune? How soon before someone is beaten or killed by mobs incensed by his "lack of loyalty"? How long before detention without trial becomes the norm?
Silence is easy. Freedom is hard.
In a time when average citizens are hurting economically; when hundreds of thousands of low-income workers have been laid off; when big companies get their squeaky wheels greased while the rest of us have to tighten our belts, the Congress has the audacity to vote for a massive renewal of farm subsidies. (Unsurprisingly, most of these goodies go to corporate farmers and producers of such "essential" goods as sugar.)
What happened to fiscal restraint? What happened to phasing out welfare for farmers? What happened to balancing the budget?
These stealth attacks on your wallet and your freedom are, of course, just beginning. It's the same ol' song-and-dance, only more so. With even the modest intensity of past media spotlights shifted from such shenanigans to rah-rah coverage of the "war," we can expect the boldness of the thugs in suits to increase. No one will be lifting the rock hiding these particular scurrying insects from sight for the foreseeable future.
This is all very sad.
Where is the coverage of the feds stiffening their opposition to medical marijuana while sick people die, unable to keep down their meds? Before the events of 9-11-01, the insanity of our last "war," the War on Drugs, aka, the War on People, was finally receiving a modicum of positive attention. Governor Gary Johnson of New Mexico, for example, continued his call for the legalization of drugs while more and more mainstream editorial writers offered their jaundiced opinions of this failed policy.
I can guarantee you'll hear precious little such opposition while we "root out the terrorists." After all, now the television ads blame you for paying for terrorism if you have the temerity to believe that you have moral autonomy over your body and what you ingest.
Even worse is the disappearance down the rabbit-hole of journalistic oblivion of a story that should have ranked up there with the assault on Randy Weaver and the murder of his wife and son; that echoed on a small scale the terrorism visited upon the peaceful residents of the Branch Davidian compound at Waco, Texas.
Ironically, on September 11 -- the very day of the World Trade Center attack -- Jacob Sullum of Reason magazine wrote about this tragedy. Yet because of the fear generated by those radical Muslims of Bin Laden's, the deaths of Grover Crosslin and Rolland Rohm are unmourned except by those who knew them.
Grover Crosslin and Rolland Rohm? Who are they, you ask?
The story of these men melds two of the greatest violations of freedom we face today: the free consumption of drugs and the free possession of guns. They were murdered for doing what they had a perfect right to do, for actions that should never have been illegal in the first place.
Forty-seven-year-old Michigan resident, Crosslin, decided to burn his own buildings on his own property when the State targeted them for forfeiture. He had been in prison before for charges related to guns and drugs. He dared to use marijuana, to own a gun, and to "maintain a drug house." He supported "the medical, spiritual and responsible recreational uses of marijuana for a more sane and compassionate America." (From his website.)
Horrors. An obvious threat to society, deserving of death. I guess the president's "compassion" does not extend to those who choose to exercise their rights, who prefer freedom to servitude.
Crosslin paid for his mistake with his life.
He's alleged to have shot at a news helicopter, a police airplane, and to have pointed a gun at an FBI "observer," i.e., spy. None of those interlopers would -- or should -- have been there if Crosslin had been left alone to engage in his peaceful behavior.
Maybe -- just maybe -- the theft of Crosslin's son by the State and his placement in a foster home contributed to Grover's anger and agitation.
Ya think?
Less than half a day later, his friend, Rohm, supposedly pointed his gun at a Michigan police officer and received the same death sentence as his roommate.
How convenient.
Instead of being lauded for having the cojones to confront the State and deny it the values they had worked to produce, these men died, essentially forgotten under the shadow of the fireball that destroyed the World Trade Center. Seeking only to maintain their own privacy, these martyrs in the ongoing and seemingly never-ending wars on drugs and guns will probably never receive the accolades they deserve for their courage.
Unlike our political "leaders" in Washington and elsewhere, Crosslin and Rohm died to defend their principles.
Imagine that.
