06 November 2016
By Jacob G. Hornberger
For the last year, the American people have had their fun, what with all those
presidential candidates catering to them, being nice to them, offering them
goodies, and saying all sorts of nice things about them.
Tomorrow, however, the roles reverse once again. Either Hillary Clinton or
Donald Trump will be in charge. One of them will assume his or her role as
America's newest democratically elected dictator.
The people will reassume their roles as serfs.
That term — democratically elected dictator — undoubtedly shocks lots of
Americans. That's because they have been inculcated with the belief that
democracy is freedom. When people are free to elect their president, the
notion goes, that shows that they are free.
But nothing could be further from the truth. Freedom is determined by the
nature of the power that the government wields over the citizenry, not by the
manner in which a ruler becomes a ruler.
For example, let's assume that a foreign ruler wields omnipotent power over
the citizenry of his country. That is, he can do anything he wants to them. He
can grab people, jail them, torture them, execute them, or assassinate them.
He can take seize their money, property, and other assets whenever he wants.
We would call that a dictatorship, right?
But let's assume that every four years there is a national election in which
the ruler of that country is democratically elected. Let's also assume that
the election is honest and legitimate.
Does that then mean that the newly elected ruler is no longer a dictator? Of
course not. He is still wielding those omnipotent powers. He is every much a
dictator as the unelected military general who takes power in a coup and who
wields the same powers. It's just that in one case the dictator is elected and
in the other he isn't. But the situation, insofar as the freedom of the
citizenry is concerned, is the same.
Like or not, admit it or not, that's the situation we now have in the United
States. Whoever is elected president will wield omnipotent power over the
American people. Tomorrow, President Clinton's or President Trump's position
as master and our position as serfs becomes reality once again.
What are those omnipotent powers that Clinton or Trump will wield over the
American people? The power to round people, put them in concentration camps or
military dungeons, torture them, execute them (with perhaps a ''trial'' by a
military tribunal), or just assassinate them. Also the power to secretly
monitor people's emails, telephone calls, and activities—to ''keep them
safe,'' of course.
It's all part of the ''war on terrorism,'' the ''war'' that came into
existence after the 9/11 attacks, the war where President Bush, with the full
support of the conservative movement, assumed ''emergency'' totalitarian
powers.
And it's all been affirmed by a compliant, submissive federal judiciary, whose
primary aim is not to enforce the U.S. Constitution but rather to protect
''national security,'' the two most important words in the American political
lexicon in our lifetime.
Of course, neither Clinton nor Trump will be the ones actually doing the
arrests, torture, killing, and surveilling. That's what the national-security
establishment, which came into existence to wage the First Cold War, is for.
Make no mistake about it: When either Clinton or Trump issues orders, the
troops, the CIA, and the NSA will obey and carry them out, especially when the
president tells them that ''national security'' is at stake.
For its part, the national-security establishment will continue ginning up
crises in the Middle East, Ukraine, South China Sea, Korea, and elsewhere.
Crises are the coin of the realm. They keep people scared. When people are
scared, they are eager to trade their freedom and prosperity for the sake of
''safety'' and ''security.''
Meanwhile, to keep the citizenry docile, submissive, and compliant Trump or
Clinton will take whatever steps are necessary — including exorbitant taxation
enforced by the IRS, which wields totalitarian powers to collect taxes owed,
or rampant money-printing by the Federal Reserve — to ensure that the American
people continue receiving their welfare, including Social Security, Medicare,
food stamps, farms subsidies, and all the rest. When people are dependent on
the federal dole, it is a virtual certainty that they're not going to make
much trouble.
Does all this mean that the cause of freedom is lost and that libertarians
should submit to depression, despondency, depression, and defeat, as some
libertarians might suggest?
On the contrary, there is no better time than now to redouble our efforts for
freedom, especially since we have an excellent opportunity to achieve major
breakthroughs for freedom in two big areas: the drug war and foreign
interventionism, notwithstanding Trump, Clinton, or the power of the
national-security establishment.
Begin with the power of ideas on liberty. Consider the drug war. Thirty years
ago, it was only libertarians calling for drug legalization. The establishment
was totally against us. Today, people on our side are coming from all walks of
life. The drug war is teetering. If we can succeed in pushing it over, it will
be a major breakthrough for liberty, peace, and prosperity. Violence in
American society in particular will plummet.
Consider foreign interventionism. As Ron Paul points out today, Americans are
sick and tired of constant, perpetual warfare, especially in the Middle East.
That includes many of the troops and their families, many of whom are
recognizing that they are sacrificing for nothing.
Imagine if we can succeed in bringing the troops home from the Middle East and
elsewhere. No more anti-American terrorism. No more color codes. No more ''war
on terrorism.''
How then would Clinton or Trump and the national-security establishment
justify their extraordinary dictatorial powers? How would they justify their
ever-growing budgets?
How many people who now oppose the drug war and foreign interventionism are
libertarians? While all libertarian oppose the drug war and many (but
unfortunately not all) oppose foreign interventionism, my hunch is that most
people who oppose the drug war and foreign interventionism would not call
themselves libertarians.
But why should that matter. What matters is achieving a free society. If that
entails people of different ideological bents aligning to eliminate
destructive government programs, what's wrong with that?
The point is this: For libertarians who believe that the way to achieve
freedom is through the election of a libertarian president or a libertarian
Congress, yes, they have every reason to feel depressed, despondent, defeated,
and doomed.
But for those of us who believe the free society can be achieved through the
power of libertarian ideas — even if that doesn't mean that a libertarian
president or Congress is ever elected — we have every reason for optimism,
especially since we are definitely on the verge of achieving two major
breakthroughs for liberty in which many non-libertarians are aligned with us —
ending the drug war and ending foreign interventionism.
If we can achieve these two thing — and I'm convinced we are close to
achieving both of them — then other libertarian positions will inevitably
become topics of debate and discussion — issues relating to economic liberty
and free markets vs. socialism and economic interventionism. When people see
the peace, prosperity, and harmony that ending the drug war and foreign
interventionism have brought our land, they will be more than willing to at
least listen to and consider other libertarian positions.
That's why we need to just keep keeping on — presenting an uncompromising case
for liberty on all fronts: the drug war, foreign interventionism, the
national-security state, and economic liberty and free markets. Despite the
election, we still have a great chance to achieve a free, prosperous,
peaceful, and harmonious society.
Jacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom
Foundation. He was born and raised in Laredo, Texas, and received his B.A. in
economics from Virginia Military Institute and his law degree from the
University of Texas. He was a trial attorney for twelve years in Texas. He
also was an adjunct professor at the University of Dallas, where he taught
law and economics. In 1987, Mr. Hornberger left the practice of law to become
director of programs at the Foundation for Economic Education. He has
advanced freedom and free markets on talk-radio stations all across the
country as well as on Fox News' Neil Cavuto and Greta van Susteren shows and
he appeared as a regular commentator on Judge Andrew Napolitano's show
Freedom Watch. View these interviews at LewRockwell.com and from Full
Context.
©
EsinIslam.Com
Add Comments