1.  This Is Not Your Father's Government
by William Stone, III  

Exclusive to TLE Issue 226     

I'm occasionally surprised by the way random chance operates.  The
serendipitous nature of coincidence is what drives religious individuals to
believe in Divine Intervention.

For the last couple of months, I've been delving into the writings of H.
Beam Piper.  I suppose it's unusual for someone who's been reading science
fiction for nearly forty years to have missed Piper, particularly
considering his libertarian bent.  From the perspective of individual
liberty, Piper's _Lone Star Planet_
(http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0441248926/qid=10542485
97/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_2/102-3844464-6933734?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)
is probably the best known -- it was on the recommendation of this book
that I delved into Piper in the first place.  I'll not recount the plot of
_Lone Star Planet_ here, except to say that the inhabitants of said world
are the descendants of Texans and practice an altogether meritorious method
of maintaining their liberty.

Piper -- or "Beam," as his friends knew him -- was a gun
enthusiast, author, self-educated scholar, and clear friend of individual
freedom.  The world lost a brilliant thinker when Piper took his own life.

What struck me while reading his work, however, is his attitude toward
galactic government:  a generally inept, inefficient body that often had
laudable goals but poor execution.

Coincidental with my discovery of Piper, I had correspondence with a
freedom-loving author who is among those who favored government
intervention overseas as a means of fighting terrorism.  Finally, to
complete the serendipity of the situation, I visited my father last
weekend.  As always, we discussed international politics.  I come by my
political views rather genetically (the majority of my family several
generations back are raving individualists), and my father is a hard-headed
clinical psychologist to boot.  When you've spent your life dealing with
rapists and serial killers (my father's chosen specialty), you don't have
the luxury of learning to spout psychobabble and asking, "Tell me, how
does that make you feel?"

So, as with any man, when my father and two respected authors (one alive
and one not) seem to all be in agreement, I sit up and listen. If nothing
else, their viewpoints provide me with a valuable insight into how the
average individual on the street is thinking.  This is something I
sometimes lack, as I have now successfully insulated myself with friends
and acquaintances who share my own views.

This, then, is how most people are approaching the War on Terrorism: 

1. The War on Terrorism is a long-term war, much like the Cold War.

2. The War in Iraq was only one battle in the War on Terrorism, and the
stated reasons for going to war were irrelevant.  The real point in
conquering Iraq was to send a message to our enemies that we're not
intimidated.

3. The War in Iraq's primary benefit was to convince countries such as
Korea that President Bush won't hesitate to wipe them off the face of the
Earth in the event that they crawl out from behind their borders.

Indeed, my father suggested that Iraq's fate was sealed on about September
12, 2001.  It was necessary to send a message to terrorist nations, and
Iraq made a useful target of opportunity.

4. The long-term goal in the Middle East is to topple all the governments
in the area and replace them with a Western-style, US-controlled democracy.
 The thinking is that a democracy is less likely to harbor terrorists,
therefore the world will be all that much safer when "civilization has
been brought to the Darkies."

5. The real goal of attempts to fight the nonexistent domestic terrorists
is political.  Politicians have to be perceived as doing something about
terrorism, and the pointless, ineffectual Federal Rape Centers that exist
at airports are a response to this.  "We care about terrorism!  See? 
We're searching your bags and spending billions of your dollars to do
it."  Those in the FedGov know it's a pointless waste of time, but
don't want to appear to be reversing a decision by doing the one thing that
would actually combat domestic
terrorism.

When taken from that perspective, I admit that it looks like the
Republicans are doing a good job.  And I admit that I very much wish that I
could believe this entire line of reasoning.  It would certainly make for
an easier life if I could shrug my shoulders, nod, and remark about what a
great job Dubyuh is doing protecting my freedom.

I've certainly pondered the idea that while I honestly believe my presence
in the US Senate would be beneficial to American freedom, I'll never
achieve that goal while on the Libertarian ticket.  If it were possible for
me to buy into the notion that the FedGov is actually working toward a more
free society, I could drop the LP, move to the Republican side, and almost
certainly be elected in 2004.

It's an enticing idea.  All I have to do is accept the notion that
government is a generally inept entity whose heart is in the right place.

Unfortunately, I can't accept that.  Here's my answer to the prevailing
opinion as stated above:

1. The War on Terrorism is a long-term war.  In fact, it's a never-ending
war.  Its intent is to replace the Cold War with a conflict that need never
end, thus providing an excuse for the twisted, evil, power-mad politicians
and bureaucrats to assume more and more power -- right up until America's
governments collapse of their own weight and internal corruption.

2. The War in Iraq does send a message:  the FedGov wants Middle Eastern
oil, and it will use any pretext in order to obtain it. Fortunately, the
ceaseless bickering of a largely tribal culture combined with its reaction
to half a century's worth of Unconstitutional, immoral Federal
interventionism provides the perfect excuse for invasion.

For half a century, Americans have been conditioned that the Middle East is
filled with nothing but terrorists and uncivilized, backward towel-heads. 
They accept the images they see on television without question.  Lacking
any real experience with the press and how news is manufactured, most
people don't understand that very few news stories have anything but a
tangential relationship to reality.

Real life is not reality television or even TV news.  Peoples' lives are
far more complicated than a sound bite or FedGov propaganda.

3. The information we are fed by the FedGov regarding any foreign country
is highly suspect.  Recall that the reason we were given for the necessity
of invading Iraq was the existence of Weapons of Mass Destruction(TM) that
were in imminent danger of being used by a madman for evil purposes.  These
weapons turn out to be nonexistent, representing either a massive failure
of intelligence sources (unlikely, considering their extraordinary accuracy
during the war) or outright lies by the Bush Administration.

Therefore, is there any way to be certain that the FedGov ever feeds us
accurate information about ANYTHING?  The is would include the
psychological disposition and motivations of heads of state, conditions in
their countries, and their future plans.

If Dubyuh can lie about Iraq in order to garner support for a war, could he
not also lie about North Korea?  Or Iraq?  Or Syria? Or domestic
terrorists?

4. The long-term goal of "bringing civilization to the Darkies"
is useful for one reason only:  to bring massive oil reserves under FedGov
control.

5. The real goal of attempts to fight the nonexistent domestic terrorists
is political.  Politicians understand that in real life, the United States
has no domestic terrorism.  The destruction of the WTC towers represented a
simple exploitation of the fact that the FedGov has transformed Americans
into a nation of cattle ready for the slaughter. They can't possibly do the
one thing that would actually make the country safe, (e.g. enforcement of
the Second
Amendment) because that would ultimately harm their goal of total
domination of every individual.

Domestic terrorism programs aren't simple ineptitude and money-wasting. 
They're an active attempt to complete the enslavement of the American
populace.

My father's (and the libertarian authors') viewpoints are colored by a time
in which it could be argued that the FedGov was, in fact, a largely inept
collection of politicians and bureaucrats whose heart was in the right
place.  Half a century ago, for example, government schools actually
provided a decent education.  Individuals could posses the means to defend
themselves against terrorists.  The FedGov had prosecuted a war against a
truly evil dictator not only bent on world domination, but who actually had
the means to do it.

This is not the world we find ourselves in today.  This is not your
father's government.  The FedGov has evolved from being a haven for the
inept to the home of the evil.  It is not a collection of bumbling idiots
whose heart is in the right place, but would-be slave-holders wishing to
place their boots on our necks.

---