Comments (15)

• Robert Lloyd

  "when the government promises to bring us security, it means only that it wants more control over our lives so that the state can enjoy longevity and peace at our expense."

  Good article Mr Rockwell! I will be fighting this 'security' for the rest of my life.

  Robert Lloyd

  Published: September 20, 2004 8:17 AM

• Steve Sadler

  Mr. Rockwell:

  I am intrigued by your article and find myself in agreement with much of what you write. Yet there are some questions I would like to pose:

  1) How does the 'free market' of individuals effectively protect itself (how can I protect myself) from a small group committed to violence and destruction?

  More specifically...the group(s) that perpetrated the 9-11 attacks are bent on destroying. It has always been true that creating something is more difficult that destroying...so how can those minority interests (radical Muslims)be effectively countered if not by some concerted (government) action?

  2) Is it not possible for the pain and suffering in Iraq to result in a favorable outcome? Is there no outcome worthy of immense sacrifice?

  Your discussion seems to presume an outcome that is less than positive. It seems, from a brief review of history, that suffering and destruction are often experieinced during major transistions. For instance...the accounts of life during the American Revolution indicate things were much more difficult and unpleasant for the average citizen. However, that pain ended and the ultimate results were rather positive. Is it always appropriate to insist that suffering is bad and should be avoided?

  At any rate, I appreciate your thoughtful discussion and look forward to your response.

  Published: September 20, 2004 10:50 AM

• Joe Potts

  This article did not go far enough in describing: (a) how the state's activities aggravate the security situation for individuals (at least productive ones); and (b) how the state itself poses an active threat to the security of most of us.
  A prime example of (b) is 9/11.

  Published: September 20, 2004 10:58 AM

• Skip Oliva

  A key drawback to relying on the state for "security" is the lack of meaningful feedback mechanisms to help prioritize law enforcement concerns. The Justice Department, for example, continues to expend more resources on issues like antitrust that have no security implications, even while demanding additional resources to "fight terrorism." The notion of scaling back antitrust enfrocement to shift resources into anti-terrorism activities violates the DOJ's very nature--the state must be able to do everything it wants to simultaneously, or so the statists claim.

  Of course, the DOJ rationalizes its behavior by claiming antitrust is "important to the nation's economy" and that price-fixing cartels are a "supreme evil" (yes, that's a literal quote from the DOJ's antitrust chief.)

  Published: September 20, 2004 11:40 AM

• Michael A. Clem

  Skip, I think you've hit the nail on the head. Minarchists claim that rights-protection is necessary for a free market to exist and operate (Even Mises basically said this in Human Action). But the contradiction is that it takes scarce resources to provide rights-protection; how do you efficiently allocate resources for rights-protection without using a market economy?

  Published: September 20, 2004 12:11 PM

• Curt Howland

  Steve,

  The only answer to a distributed danger is a distributed defense.

  Even though the peaceful people on the airplanes used in the attack on 11.Sept.2001 greatly outnumbered the assassins and could have easily prevented the attack, they did nothing. The central planners had decided that in all circumstances the peaceful people were to be disarmed, they were to cooperate and give the assassins whatever was demanded.

  The attack was a textbook example of the failure of central planning. Yet the response has been to centralize and aggregate yet more power into the organizations which failed.

  The only way for a truly favorable outcome in Iraq is to pull out immediately and completely. Those who inflicted this suffering on the people of Iraq should be identified and fired from their US government jobs, and to lose their all-important pensions.

  Citizens of the US (and the rest of the world) can then go back to peaceful trade with the citizens of Iraq, which is the only way suffering has ever been aleviated on a sustainable basis.

  What outcome is so positive that I am justified in sacrificing others? The only humane choice is to stop the sacrifice from happening, or from continuing. The dead are dead, that cannot be taken back. The death can, however, be stopped.

  Published: September 20, 2004 3:56 PM

• Heidi Cohoe

  When I read this article over and over, I cannot help but see a bias of someone who resents a wealthy powerful national community. This community is made of my and your ancestors who immigrated generations back. Mine from England and Germany.

  I will continue to tell my kids and now grandkids the story of their great-great-grandmother Annie who upon entering the New York harbor and immigrant port of Ellis Island, saw the "Big Lady" and was amazed by her and what she must of felt coming into the harbor of an unknown country and unknown people. My mother gave me Annie's name as my middle name. I love it.

  My fathers family is Native American Indian. We are Navajo. More than likely Anasazi, from where they came and lived. We never left. We are made up of medicine men, rug weavers, cattlemen, sheep herders, doctors, artist, network engineers, political appointees, housekeepers, caretakers, business owners, mothers, fathers, and many minimum wage earners. But we all know how to work.

  Yes, the incoming European managed to out wit and out develope the American Indian, much like what we are doing in Iraqi to some extent, many would say. But this is what I believe we cannot unbreed from our heritage. Only the strong survive, survival of the fittest. This is not a bad thing.

  My native american family is long lived, well rooted and still resident on the lands they were born and raised on at least 150 years ago, that I can recall. Its just a 5 hour drive from where I sit now. I feel my roots and genes.

  My families have struggled, suffered, worked hard, gone through death, loses, disease, and social forces that they had no control over.
  
  So then we get to me. Why am I so passionate about defending my President and my country? I am a very proud American, a republican by the blood of my families, by the strength of there blood and sweat. I applaud the hard working, long suffering and old of age for the work, developement and examples that they have left to us all, this younger generation. And I gladly will teach it to my own and theirs.

  To protect the state and not the citizen is a seperation of us and them. Somehow, I get from this article that the person believes there is a difference. The only difference I see is that the author of this article, is bitter at the lose of control he feels for not being more in control.

  Well none of us are in total control We never have been. This country was built on free will and unknowing possibilites. And now we have situations, many, over the years that, from far and wide, come to attack our will and possiblities. Something that every human being on this planet has the right to experience. So says it in the bible if you are a believer.

  The reasons for sifting focus and money from rebuilding to security is so obvious. A basic algebra student could figure this one out.

  General Tommy Frank himself admitted. We had no idea what kind of war this was going to be. We had no idea what we were going to find. There were many senerios and thought strategies, but who really knew? We did know it would be terrible. We did know this war was going to get worse, long going, death, and it was going to cost money. Believe me the old have paid their taxes and continue to do so. They paid for these days to protect us all.

  What we find in Irag now is a country fresh up for any possibilites and free will. And what do we see? We see alot of free will all right. Freely running about malicious with the will to take over, hate, kill, and convert through lies, torture, killings, and so forth. Do you not think the Iragi people are actually comfortable with this and live their live within the control they are only allowed. Its not much.

  Do you not think the Middle East is far more experienced and deadend by these free willed groups already? They have been for centuries. They are beat down and numb to it. They have no control.

  As far as how many billions of dollars and what the author thinks its being targeted to:

  "It is money taken from you and me to be spent to force the Iraqi population to submit to the puppet government that rules only because of the US. It is money to pay for more police, weapons, bullets, bombs, spying, arresting, torturing, jailing, maiming, and killing."

  Oh come on, as a good friend of mine would say. I do not buy this. This money and shift to security before rebuild is based on "Securing the Realm of the Middle East". Continuing on with now Irag. Securing and teaching to secure, againt the interferrance and distruction of the true incoming governments that will rule and implant a continuing non-evolvting, non-enlightning, freeless willed Country.

  How can something be rebuild until it is secured? Why not sift focus? Sounds like the logical and correct approach to take. Perhaps the US will have to provide the security that they so hoped the Iragi people would take up for themselves. But you know what? They just cannot do it yet. Is that a hard concept to realize?

  Perhaps if the new Iragi government were able to begin rebuilding, by their own free will and god given rights for unlimited possibilites for their children, ancestors to come, perhaps then the people of Irag would know what its like to fight for their own fruits of their own blood and sweat and tears.

  Perhaps if given the opportunity, direction, support and encouragement, these people could develope State strength, pride and loyalty. Perhaps they would then be better able to feel the heart felt desire and strength, as the US does to protect the security of their State.

  I see that by the US protecting the State as protecting the Statees.
  
  As US citizens we are not hurting. I have been poor and I have been upper middle class. I have the opportunity to make the capital and assets as I desire and am willing to do. It's all in my own strenght and desire. My ancestors paid that price for me and mine. I will continue to pay whatever it takes as well.

  What I see is a confused fine line here between us and them. At any time you are welcome to cross that ecomonic line. Any of you. This war is not about protecting just the political and social elite and favored. In gods eyes we are all each elite and favored. Just as every Iragi citizen is. Just also remember, we are not alone with just the problems of Irag. There are several other countries involved in the securing strategy.

  I will get off my soap box, however I am somewhat insulted that more people do not follow their ancestors leads and put out a little more blood and sweat for the security of our nation, for our children and grandchild. Many generations will continue to flourish I pray. Iraqi's pray the same prayer.

  Published: September 20, 2004 4:30 PM

• D. Ramsay

  Dear Mr. Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.;

  I just want to say thank you for a great article. I think history represents well the acts of power that come to be used in the name of the state. Where will this all take us, I do not know. I believe that when the state has the omnicompetent power to be injudicious, it may well just make use of that power.

  Best regards, D.W.Ramsay

  Published: September 20, 2004 4:32 PM

• Joe Keckeissen

  I am all through with Homeland Security, Social Security, and all other kinds of security to be envisioned by the interventionists in Washington.

  "As fore me, Sir, give me Liberty or give me death>" God bless Patrick Henry. Sincerely, Joe Keckeissen

  Published: September 20, 2004 5:52 PM

• Curt Howland

  Heidi, did you actually read the article?

  Published: September 20, 2004 7:58 PM

• Paul D

  "Is it not possible for the pain and suffering in Iraq to result in a favorable outcome?"

  Such is the rallying cry of every despot, every destructive scheme, every experiment in Communism or fascism. To excuse murder, destruction, and oppression by saying one was hoping for a "favorable outcome" is no excuse at all. I see no favorable outcome for the 12,000 dead Iraqi civilians or the thousands of Iraqi soldiers who were just defending their country.

  "Is there no outcome worthy of immense sacrifice?"

  Ah yes, those same despots and tyrants also love talking about sacrifice. The thing is, what they really mean is the sacrifice of *others*. There can hardly be a more hideous or hypocritical excuse for committing murder than claiming it was a brave "sacrifice" on the victim's part.

  True sacrifice is when you sacrifice *yourself* for the betterment of others.

  Published: September 21, 2004 1:40 AM

• Anonymous Coward

  Gah. SF types like Heidi Cohoe give me the creeps :|

  Published: September 21, 2004 3:47 AM

• Steven M

  Yes, Heidi. All libertarians conceive of who constitutes us and them differently from the mainstream political parties, in whose interest it is to have the residents that they tax, regulate, and imprison view their government as always acting in their best interest. The reality is that government is made up of people who have their own self-interests, which are usually not the same as those they govern.

  If the federal government is us, then we are unprincipled thieves, mass murders, and torturers; we test new weapons of mass destruction on large civilian populations (Hiroshima, Nagasaki); we lie to ourselves about our self interest to get involved in unnecessary wars (Lusitania); we torture individuals to get information (Gutanamo, Abu Gharib), we do not allow others to have the same weapons that we have (Iraq, Iran, etc), we invade others without credible threats of aggression (Iraq, Vietnam, Korea, Phillipines, ), bribe others into war with promises of foreign aid, incur massive debts, and we overthrow non-aggressive regimes out of convenience.

  Since I neither do nor approve of any of these behaviors, I view the federal government of the United States as the other. Since I have met many friendly, peaceful people from different countries, I also give the residents of other nations the benefit of the doubt when their countries aggress in their names. For libertarians, us constitutes any moral individual (self-seeking, but non-aggressive) living under whatever state they find themselves in. For libertarians, the other are any individuals that aggress. Usually, it is governments that aggress, whether established states or private organizations.

  Whenever a service agency selfishly claims a monopoly over the ability to provide a legitimate service, such as security, pensions, or insurance, their monopoly is enforced by aggression. Unchecked aggression leads either to war or totalitarianism, and poverty. Checked aggression leads to peace and individual prosperity.

  It is unfortunately true that many individuals proudly associate themselves with the federal government because it is a superpower, rather than because of any moral principles to which it adheres. (What moral values remain?) Such individuals love war as long as we are winning it. To rationalize the fact that they allow our government do things that other governments are not allowed to do, they claim that we are blessed by God. Osama also believed that his mission was blessed by God. Such foolish messianic notions lead to destruction.

  Why do I (and most of the world's population)say the US government is evil? Look at its historical record without bias, and you will see this too. I believe that it has become evil because it is powerful. Those with power will eventually wield it. I know that most US citizens are not evil as demonstrated by widespread opposition to the war in Iraq, despite federal lies about imminent threat or mass destruction. I believe that many more would have opposed the war had the lies been exposed earlier.

  
  

  Published: September 21, 2004 12:11 PM

• Heidi Cohoe

  Curt - Did you read the first eight words of my comments to Mr. Rockwells article?

  Coward - Sorry about your creeps. Sounds like a personal problem. You'll get over it.

  Steven M. - I enjoyed your civil rebuttal. Thank you.

  Jeeze, I didn't expect to get rebuttal comments back from you gentlemen. I merely meant to post my comments to the article, because it really hit a nerve in me. There's always two sides, if not more, to every story. Let's take it to the polls.
  

  Published: September 21, 2004 2:29 PM

• A Azure

  Heidi,

  Your last post explains all that you hold in ideas.

  You believe that, by some irrational logic, that a group of people can determine the "rights" of others by a random show of hands.

  Thus, as long you belong to the tryanny - and they are in a majority - you are "right" no matter how perverse the subject of such votes.

  Steven, brillant post .... sadly, you failed to copyright it, so I will copy the articulation as if it was my own... :)

  Published: September 21, 2004 7:57 PM