Category: News & Opinion (General)  Topic: Government
  Synopsis: The government is indistinguishable from the mafia
  Source: Liberty Forum
  Published: November 21, 2003  Author: Rick Fisk
  For Education and Discussion Only.  Not for Commercial Use.




A Study Of Government Protection

November 21, 2003
by Rick Fisk | Special to Libertyforum.org

As the U.S. gains ground on its designs to achieve global hegemony, it isn't just U.S. citizens that are affected. Support for increased intervention is achieved by instilling terror in populations outside of our government's direct jurisdiction. The government and its strident supporters like to blame secret conspirators, such as Al Qaeda, for instilling terror, but these conspirators could not become successful were it not for Government's failure to defend us.

September 11th marked the second anniversary of the latest failure. In spite of this, the government demands that citizens give up freedoms so that it may defend against "enemies" of freedom. We've heard this before. Atomic bombs exploded over Hiroshima and Nagasaki were necessary, it was said, to end the war. But there were other motives at work.

The atomic bomb was mass-murder intended to terrorize the world. The display of power was meant as both a deterrent and a warning to U.S. citizens that it could happen to us if somebody else developed the technology. The result was extremely profitable for what Eisenhower dubbed the military industrial complex. The military budget of the United States eventually grew to dwarf the budgets of Africa and South America combined. This, so that we could curtail the threat of communists in eastern Europe.

If it weren't for the attack on Pearl Harbor, it is likely that the US would never have entered WWII. The Cold War then, was predicated on the superlative failure of U.S. military intelligence and its leaders. U.S. officials knew the Japanese planned to attack and did nothing to prevent it. Nay, they openly encouraged it by enacting a trade embargo against Japan..

While the events of September 11, 2001, have been used to justify increased military intervention and federal power, these same events are the very reason why the idea of such increases should be vetoed. Unfortunately, in the United States, and perhaps this is universally true, government is always rewarded, rather than penalized, for its failures.

Budgets and power are often increased in response to failure. For example, federal law enforcement agencies have consistently used the claim that they are "outgunned" to ask for more funding and it is their failures which provide the opportunity to make such requests.

"Their guns sounded like cannons and our guns sounded like pop guns ...We couldn't call 911. We had to get out of this ourselves." - BATF negotiator Mike Cavanaugh speaking to a Congressional Committee on the BATF raid at Waco.

In spite of the fact that the BATF brought machine guns and armed helicopters to collect a 200 dollar tax from peaceful citizens, they were "outgunned." The budgets of both the BATF and FBI have drastically increased since the fiery end at Waco, Texas. Ostensibly, these appropriations are intended to protect us against dangerous criminals. But who's protecting us against these government agencies?

"Government is really good at only one thing, and that is to break your leg, then hand you a crutch and say, 'Look, if it weren't for the government you wouldn't be able to walk,'" - Harry Browne

There is only one way to describe a government that claims it is protecting its population in such a fashion; a criminal protection racket.

You've heard of the protection racket. You might remember it portrayed in some cheesy cop show from the 70's or the latest mafia glorification vehicle; The Sopranos. Who hasn't read Mario Puzo's The Godfather or seen the adaptation in cinematic form?

The protection racket succeeds in these stories because it plays on the victim's worst fears. The target is generally a successful business owner. A "security specialist" describes to him a myriad of possible catastrophes, such as theft, arson and murder, which, he insists, are preventable for a fee. Bad men may be plentiful otherwise, but it is all too obvious that the racketeer will be directing such attacks if an agreement isn't reached. The victim knows that he is getting the shaft, but what choice does he have? His protection agency is a criminal enterprise.

These scenes always beg the obvious questions; "Why doesn't he call the cops?" or "Why doesn't he just shoot the bastard?" In real life however, our pugilistic foil is more than likely a government employee. Who does one call then?

Government is the largest protection racket ever created. While the mafia has it's niche, the government deals in volume. Every activity in which the citizen engages has become subject to the protection racket. Whether it be flushing a toilet, dispatching property, marriage, earning a living or simply enjoying a night on the town, the wise guys lie in wait for the next unwary customer.

The protection racket is heinous and foul because it punishes those it is claiming to protect.

It is fashionable of late to characterize foreign companies as aggressors against the U.S. A few political factions are demanding we give up more freedoms in order to protect our livelihoods. Patrick Buchanan is a leader of one of these factions. He insists that we need to protect jobs by giving up freedom. The entire premise of his candidacy in 2002 was one big protection racket.

Part of his plan was predicated on linking military solutions to trade policy. The proverbial gun to the head was supposed to give us more jobs and commerce. Like the mafia figure, his plans were based on potentially dangerous scenarios that might occur were he not allowed to become the newest "security specialist."

"I would tell them, the Mexican government and these other governments, no foreign aid, no IMF loans, no World Bank loans, if you're part of this OPEC conspiracy. I would tell the Kuwaitis, look, we saved you, you wouldn't exist without us, now start pumping oil or the American fleet is leaving." - [ Emphasis added]

Wolfe Blitzer interview with Pat Buchanan

The irony of his plan is that it would fail to protect jobs. No doubt this would give him cause to up the ante when failure was realized. Nevertheless, his statement illustrates that the offerings of politicians who claim to have "breakthrough" solutions to society's problems are indistinguishable from those of competitors. They all want to be your personal "security specialist."

"He that would give up personal liberty for a little bit of personal safety, deserves neither liberty, nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin

One could provide numerous examples of government-induced histrionics, calling for a restrictive set of laws in order to remedy a problem. In each and every case, the legal remedy involves trading personal freedom for security.

The war on drugs - Freedom to self-medicate, own property, engage in commerce, maintain privacy -- all abolished in the interests of protecting the population from rampant gang crime, created by the government's outlawing of unlicensed drug commerce.

The war on poverty - Freedom to enjoy the fruits of one's labor -- abolished to "protect" the poor.

The war on child abuse - Freedom of association and freedom to practice religion -- abolished in the name of protecting children from abuse. Over 2.5 million Americans each year are victimized by State agencies claiming to seek to end child abuse. State-sanctioned child abuse; "for the children."

The war on terrorism - While one could argue that this is not a domestic policy, it still involves the abolition of certain freedoms in order to protect us from terrorists. Unfortunately, the Patriot Act has abolished what freedoms the above wars hadn't already attacked.

Claims that any of these protection rackets are proper government functions are easily shown to be fraudulent since they all involve attacks on liberty. Government's role in protecting our rights has been abandoned. One conclusion arises from a study of government practices:

Government will always expand to become a criminal enterprise in protection.

If this seems extreme, consider that the only reason given for the existence of government is to protect us. The assumption inherent in this claim is that we are otherwise powerless to defend our rights. Why aren't we as skeptical of government as we are of mafia thugs? Politicians who demand more power should nullify, rather than enhance, credulity.

If by putting a bayonet to a man's breast, and giving him his choice, to die, or be "protected in his rights," it secures his consent to the latter alternative, it then proclaims itself a free government, --- a government resting on consent! - Lysander Spooner.

Even amongst minarchists, the protection racket cannot be ignored. Any reform of government policy must include a means by which the citizen can legally reject such attempts to protect him. Otherwise, we perpetuate criminal enterprise. The protection racket can only be derailed by holding individuals responsible and free to direct their own protection. The last thing that this nation needs is yet another self-styled "security specialist" insisting we give up freedom for protection.



Rick Fisk is an IT specialist, inventor and currently lives in the Austin, Texas area. He and his wife teach primitive survival and natururalist skills to home-schooled children and home-school their own two girls.

Note: Permission to reproduce this article is granted provided that the article is reprinted in its entirety (including this notice) and proper credit is given to its author and LibertyForum.org.