Exclusive to STR
July 10, 2009
Other than that one is an alternative media magnate who is infinitely more well known than the libertarian Internet essayist and scribbler of horror tales, that is. Actually, there isn't really much difference, until we get to endgame (pun intended, my apologies to A.J. and his excellent documentary film). We have very different ideas about how to get from here to there, but that's no reason for criticism or discord. It's merely an opportunity for some clarity. There is nothing that those bureaucratic parasites in government would love more than to see disparity arise between minarchists, patriots, and constitutionalists, and libertarians, voluntaryists, and anarchists. Yes, I know 'anarchist' has been touted as a bit of a dirty word over at Infowars, et al, but don't expect any retributions here. As stated, it's counterproductive, and let's face it ' the term 'anarchy' has long since gotten a bad, if bum, rap. I have always and still hold that both those who advocate small G and those who want no G must stick together. As was the motto at the most recent New Hampshire Liberty Forum, 'Many Paths to Liberty .' Until endgame, that is (my apologies to A.J. once again).
So let's clarify, as promised. To paraphrase Alex Jones ' and perhaps, to encapsulate the vision of minarchists, patriots, and constitutionalists in general ' the goal is to promote America's foundational principles to a point where a critical mass of the population not only recognize the current government's wholesale corruption and tyranny, but are then poised to assume the reins of political power, bring to justice many key members of the old regime's ranks for their transgressions against the aforementioned principles, and then forever after 'guard that jewel.' In other words, perpetually oversee and maintain a government restricted to original constitutional limitations.
Once again, with all due respect to Alex Jones, his excellent videos and shows, and those who mean well by becoming fellow 'infowarriors,' the reasons why this cannot work are numerous. As writer and lecturer (and STR guest editor) Anthony Gregory has stated, and I paraphrase, 'I don't know whether I'll live to see a society not dominated by a government, but I am positive I won't live to see a society dominated by a limited government.'
All we need do to prove the truth of this contention is to look not at what might happen, but what in fact did. Government in America started out small, grew into a giant, and became the atrociously invasive monster that it is today. This occurred in spite of how people voted, who came into power, or what policies were introduced. Alex Jones would undoubtedly point out that what really occurred was that government was co-opted by the 'New World Order' ' the Bilderberg Group and the international banking cartels. Based on my long-standing study and admiration of his work, I have no doubt there is much truth to that. Still, it doesn't address the fundamental problem.
If there had been no government, and only a free-market economy, the 'New World Order' would've had no tool to force itself upon the populace. Without the guns of government, bankers and financiers would've been forced to compete in an open marketplace in which stymie of competition would become effectively impossible. Only the leveraged meddling and enabling legislation backed by violent government force gives such people the ability to erect the kind of system we are all ensnared in. To create such a system, on a corporate level, say, becomes exorbitantly expensive to the point of counterproductivity, and cannot be financially sustained ' especially once one's customers become aware of what is happening. Try forming a coalition, then, with others of like mind, and the internal power struggle and desire to branch away based on profit motive dissolves it in short order. No one will stand long for being everyone else's financial equal when there is always more money to be made by competing on one's own. Try intimidating that member into submission, and all-out attrition dissolves the 'conspiracy.' Just look at the history of Mafia crime families. There's all the evidence you'll ever need.
Moreover, suppose Alex Jones' vision does become reality, i.e., no 'New World Order' but still a constitutionally limited government? I think we can safely assume that, in spite of the fact that the likelihood of achieving this is far less than that of simply eliminating government altogether in favor of a free market, such a government would in short order begin to revert back to the utterly reprobate cesspool it is at present. Why? There would still be elections. Those in office would also eventually die. Things would, as they actually did, change. Differing ideologies and venal lust for power by those attracted to governing in the first place would bring such a precariously balanced and wholly temporal house of cards down in a matter of a few years or a decade. Conversely, once people saw at first hand the enormous benefits of life in a true free market with absolutely zilcho government, few would wish to once again return to the old way of existence. The very idea of government itself would be forever discredited. It would be like the idea of a flat earth. Next to no one would believe in it anymore.
In recapitulation, I'm not saying I don't like a big part of Alex Jones' message. I like what he's promoting a hell of a lot more than what we have, and I'm not here to try to insult, disparage, or discourage his efforts. Some of them have been truly tremendous. Indeed, STR often links to news items and such at his websites. All I'm saying is we need some clarity. We need to re-examine both history and the status quo and ask ourselves if we really want to repeat the same old mistakes all over again ' or whether we want to be bold and daring and adventuresome enough to move to the next stage of human evolution. I know Alex Jones is excited about the idea of liberty. Obviously, so am I.
Let's have another good hard look at reality, and then achieve it.