Welfare for "Security"

Welfare for "Security"
by Mark Anderson, Columnist

June 13, 2002

Everything is backwards today. Less freedom is now called security. Dependence is now called "independence." Americans are an incredibly dependent people, without even realizing it because we clothe statism with neat sounding euphemisms like, "accountability." The Soviets also called communism freedom. Let us stop obscuring what we are headed towards. We are dependent on the government to "defend our freedom" for us. Yet, the government does not defend our freedom at all.

This dependency is evident by this post 9-11 debate over what now shall we do to "protect" ourselves. Absent from every solution has been more freedom and less government. Every answer involves some sort of government intervention. I see 9-11 as a symptom of this dependency on government, not a problem due to a lack of government.

I served four years in the Marine Corps. As I neared the end of my enlistment, I began to think about what the biggest threat to our freedom is. It is, no doubt, the Federal Government. The Federal Government is the biggest transgressor against our rights. Then I began to think about where my checks were coming from. They were coming from the Federal Government. A Federal Government military is just that; it works for the Federal Government. Can anybody tell me when the last time the government military prevented its employer, the Federal Government, from transgressing against our rights?

The Federal Government military is not there to defend your freedom. For all too long, Americans have been suffering from metanoid delusions that the government protects us. This nanny state has fostered dependency on itself and inculcated us with the idea that it is our protector and our provider. This has resulted in Americans never once questioning our lack of freedom to defend ourselves.

We ought to abolish the government military and all Federal police power. A Federal standing military is contrary to the Constitution. The only provision allowed for is a standing navy. I encourage you all to read the Anti-Federalist Papers - particularly George Mason. What exactly has a Federal standing military gotten us into? Foreign entanglements. A standing military requires a mission. We have troops defending borders in Kosovo, Korea and the old Soviet states. What exactly does this have to do with our defense? The Department of Defense would be more appropriately called the Department of World Defense.

The retort is, "what in the world will save us without a government military?" The answer is simple: a well-armed populace.

It is too bad for those poor souls who perished on September 11, 2001, that they were not armed. Security on the ground did not fail to meet FAA standards. The hijackers seized the planes with tiny box cutters. This would not have happened if those passengers were allowed to observe, and did observe, their second amendment rights on those flights. But we can't carry guns onto planes because that would be a violation of Federal statutory law.

You may disagree with passengers boarding planes with firearms. However, the government should have no role in setting the guidelines. And the beautiful thing about freedom is, nobody can compel you to fly an airline which allows firearms on board.

I know when I take such a position, it seems so radical. Just because this is radically different from the status quo, does not make it radically wrong. It is hard to contemplate us actually assuming our rightful duty to defend ourselves because of our reliance and dependency on government. Whoever would imagine that we should be charged with the task of defending ourselves by, say, boarding a plane with a gun holstered on our hip, when the government will "save" us instead? The only reason why this seems so far fetched is precisely because of our reliance upon, and determination to depend on, daddy government.

Daddy government does not make us safer. Daddy government is what makes us less safe. The idea of war is to defend your freedom. Fighting war in the name of statism is contrary to its very premise. Freedom is safety, and safety demands the freedom for us to defend ourselves. It is time for us to end welfare for "security" and demand that every gun law be repealed.

paranoia - a medical term applied to the erroneous perception of a threat or danger.

metanoia - a medical term applied to the erroneous belief that everything is good or benign.

(Properly perceiving a real threat is not the exact inverse of paranoia. The exact inverse would be metanoia.) ***

Photo of the author courtesy of staff files