Well That Explains The Race Baiting And McVeigh Comparisons

Daniel Henninger at The Wall Street Journal has an interesting take on why the Democrats see a demon under every bed. In an opinion piece that describes why race baiting, class warfare and predictions of right wing violence predominate Democratic rhetoric today Henninger points to some data in a recent Pew Research Center report:

There was always something eerie about the way the Democrats said their health-care legislation was what the American people had waited “70 years” for. Invoking the ghosts of 1939 was kind of creepy. Then when the moment in history finally arrived, history got no votes from the other party. Whatever the politics, there was something ominous about all this. One felt something else was going on.

A Pew Research Center report just out, the one that says trust in government is at an “historic low” of only 22%, looks like the something else.

Dig past the headline of the Pew study and one discovers why Bill Clinton is insinuating that “demonizing” government could cause another Oklahoma City bombing. If these numbers are at all close to reality, something one can hardly doubt just now, the American people have issued a no-confidence vote in government, at both the national and state level. To the extent one believes in the “consent of the governed,” consent is being eroded.

This report isn’t bad news for the Democrats. It’s Armageddon.

The survey compares views sampled in 1997 with now. The “now” is the Democrats’ problem.

The survey took place this mid-March. After one year of the charismatic, ever-present Barack Obama, after passage of the party’s totemic health-care bill, after spending zillions on Keynesian pump-priming, the American people–well beyond the tea partiers–have the lowest opinion ever of national government.

The “consent of the governed” is a phrase that has appeared frequently not just in the articles on this blog but more so in the comments here, where the real pulse of an engaged electorate can be measured. Henninger believes, and I agree, that something more profound happened in the past year. The news filter that always existed between the electorate and the makers of the news has suddenly dissolved and voters are digesting real time news faster than the political class can respond and spin.

Something unique happened in the first Obama year, about the last thing the Democratic Party needed: The veil was ripped from the true cost of government. This is the ghastly nightmare Democrats have always needed to keep locked in a crypt.

Before the Internet, that was easy. Washington, California, New York, New Jersey–who knew what the pols were spending? The Democrats (and their Republican pilot fish) could get away with this. Not now. Email lists, 24/7 newspapers, blogs, TV and talk radio–the spending beast is running naked.

Of course, the Tea Parties understood this sea change as it was happening last spring. The MSM response (best characterized by Susan Roesgen ) never evolved and is predictably still stuck on stupid at about eighteen months behind the curve. I’m looking forward to their analysis of the 2010 midterms as they figure out what happened just in time for the Presidential primaries in 2012. Similarly, David Brooks is blaming the Democrat’s current dilemma and Obama’s hard left policies on the collision of “history” and current events. Allah does a good job shredding that complaint (follow the links in his piece to other good takedowns of Brooks). Brooks, along with the current administration, the old media organs and the Democratic Congress can’t see the forest for the trees. But their chorus of complaints appear to be an accurate indicator of one thing: when Democratic Leaders like Barrack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid play the race card so casually, attack Rush Limbaugh so easily and demonize the Right as violent so wantonly we can be certain they have lost the debate and the electorate. This is why Daniel Henninger is calling their predicament Armageddon.

White Pride, White Guilt: Part I
Fear And Loathing In New Hampshire
  • Justrand

    The Tea Parties are EXACTLY what they claim to be: real Americans peacefully assembling!

    SO peaceful that police everywhere are frankly astounded!

    BUT…the underlying anger and discontent that an out of control government has created is a REAL THING. This November we’ll take back the country peacefully. Otherwise…

  • GarandFan

    November is going to be soooooooooooo SWEET!

  • jim m

    If the dems force through immigration reform, take over the financial industry, force through cap and trade, force a new fairness doctrine….Will November matter?

    With Graham colluding with the dems to push amnesty for illegals it’s unlikely the clueless GOP lead by Steele (not the sharpest knife in the drawer) will be able to capitalize on the voter discontent.

    They just don’t get it. Steele is spending too much time trying to get left of center Senate candidates onto the ballot. The good news is that he is failing.

    The GOP will do well in November in spite of themselves. They will take their victories as meaning that they get it when they don’t. They will turn tail on repeal of Obamacare and they will be ineffective on fiscal restraint. Once they get in they will focus their energy on getting approval from CNN rather than the electorate.

    November is meaningless unless we get their attention. I’m not sure that we can.

  • wolfwalker

    when Democratic Leaders like Barrack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid play the race card so casually, attack Rush Limbaugh so easily and demonize the Right as violent so wantonly we can be certain they have lost the debate and the electorate.

    I’ll believe it when I wake up Nov 3rd and we have a new Republican majority — one dominated by real reformers and not same-as-the-old-boss. Not an instant before.

  • Harmon

    Don’t wait just wait for November. It’s primary season and it’s time to pick the candidates that will run in the general election. It is also time to put the establishment politicians on notice that “business as usual” is over and it’s time to either listen to the boss and do what they were hired to do, or look for employment elsewhere. Check out the candidates and find one you can support, especially with your time and money. For the first time in years I actually have a real choice in both the House and Senate primary races. You better bet that I am paying close attention to their words and records. I am also about to write a some checks to a couple of politicians for the first time since Reagan.

  • kathie

    Obama is amused that Americans are discontent when 95% of us got tax cuts. I admit that I got a check for $250. It was not a tax decrease, it was a one time check. When Obama passed the $800 billion “jobs bill” I guess some Americans benefited, though I know none. But when Obama decided that the Federal Government wanted to be involved in every Americans medical care, 85% of us said wait just one little minute, and we all listened in disbelief. Americans 85% of whom made it their business to be insured knew that what Obama said was all spin, and out in the streets we poured.

    We do not want to have the government in our business, period.

  • http://fullthrottle.cranialcavity.net Marc

    kathie – “Obama is amused that Americans are discontent when 95% of us got tax cuts. I admit that I got a check for $250.”

    Well, glad you got that much, me… I got a whopping 13 bucks a month.

    Eaten up by higher elec, gas, food and basic cable bills. That would be called a net loss.

  • http://ak4mc.us/cms/ McGehee

    Any tax consideration Obama may have seen fit to throw my way is chicken feed compared to what his policies are costing me.

  • Jim Addison

    Henninger makes a persuasive case on this particular issue, but this didn’t arise in a vacuum.

    His argument does not account for the constant need for Democrats to use disinformation to sell themselves and their policies in America. Every winning Democratic candidate for President since Nixon has governed well to the left of where he ran. On every issue, Democrats make wildly false claims of the benefits of their proposals (many of which have been proven not to work, in this country and around the world), and cannot seem to advocate without demonizing the Republicans.

    Note Obama’s peculiar habit of always claiming the opposition has offered NO alternative ideas, and wish to do nothing. But it hardly began with him. Remember the Democrat on the House floor who reacted to the capital gains tax cuts in the ’90s by crying, “They’re coming for the elderly, they’re coming for the sick, they’re coming for the poor …”?

    This has been necessary because if they ran as far to the left as they really are, they could never win. And if their policies were ever to receive a dispassionate review, they would be found wanting.

    It is not just now, with the plummeting polls, that Democrats resort to hyperbolic slander, straw men, and outright lies. The poll drop may be a symbol of the practice coming home finally to roost, but the practice is and has been their only life’s blood for a long time now.

  • SteveP

    Of course, the Tea Parties understood this sea change as it was happening last spring.

    The Tea Party isn’t ahead of the cureve on anything. The Tea Party is a bunch of idiots. Case in point:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbyFeFhUTmI&feature=player_embedded

    None of these people know what they’re protesting about. They hurl catch phrases as if they think there’s some meat and meaning behind them, then, when asked what they mean, can’t elaborate.

    I’ll tell you who the Tea Partiers are. They’re the last 20% who were too stupid to see that Bush wasn’t their savior and are too confused and prejudice to recognize that Obama isn’t their enemy.

  • jim m

    Keep believing the propaganda Steve. Keep your head in the sand.

    If you bothered paying a moment’s attention to the Tea Party crowd you would know that hey aren’t all that happy with W either. TARP started on his watch. His administration over spent, was clueless in its pursuit of MSM approval, and contributed to the big government problem. Compassionate Conservatism was just big government expansion cloaked with a mantle of conservative talk.

    Lots of conservatives were not happy with Bush, just like lots of leftists are not happy that Barry hasn’t gone further to turn America into a socialist paradise yet.

    Libs like you like to think that the Tea Party movement is just some astroturfed GOP stunt. The truth is that it really is grassroots. It doesn’t care about party loyalty because we are smart enough to realize that political parties aren’t in it for us, they are in it for themselves.

    The Tea Parties will keep on going until we get a government that is actually responsive to our calls for financial responsibility, personal freedom, reduced taxes and reduced government intervention in business and personal life.

    The GOP has already shown that they don’t get it. Steele is a buffoon who takes the Tea Party for granted half the time and mistakes them for the enemy the rest.

    That being said yes there are foolish people on both sides. However, none of these people looked as foolish as the lefty Berkeley students explaining why Ben Franklin was their favorite president.

  • Bruce Henry

    Re the “true cost of government” thingie:

    Since I know Wizbangers love simple, grade-school analogies, I’ll propose this one.

    Suppose you buy a house, and later, coincidentally, become addicted to cocaine (Iraq War), and then crack (Medicare Part D). Soon, your house is being neglected. The roof starts leaking, termites attack the subflooring, paint peels, the driveway cracks, you fall behind in your county taxes, but you somehow manage to keep up the mortgage payments. Then a recession hits, making your situation almost untenable.

    Then, one day, miraculously, you wake up sober. (Election of 2008). Now that you’ve got over your addiction, what do you do about your house?

    Suppose your friendly neighbor, the Chinese guy across the street, wants to loan you the money to make the necessary repairs. Do you borrow the money and make the house worth something again, or tighten your belt and live with the termites and the leaky roof until the sumbitch falls down?

    Hey, I know it’s not a perfect analogy, but it’s as good as most of the ones I see here.

  • HughS

    Give it another try, Bruce.

  • Jeff Blogworthy

    Here is a good scene of a Democrat talking to a Republican. The Democrat is furious because the Republican refuses to give up and join the collective.

  • John

    “Not a perfect analogy” is the understatement of the year. If your life got the point of your analogy would you go out and spend more money?

    Take a look around at the US today, over 9% unemployment, deficits that boggle the mind, government trying to stick it’s nose into everything.

    Basically what your saying is government is the problem and your solution is give government more power. You must assume that you will always have the government you like.

    I would much rather stuff the federal government back in the box it should be in so government run by either democrats or republicans can assume this level of power.

    Bruce since you clearly lean democrat imagin a time (maybe not that far away) when a republican president comes to power with all this goverment expansion to work with, you’re going to be pretty unhappy. Wouldn’t you be happier with a federal government that stays out of your business? I know I would

  • jim m

    Great analogy Bruce, except for the problem that conservatives widely opposed Part D and while they may have supported the Iraq war many were frustrated by the Bush admins series of half measures. It seemed as thought they wanted to do the least amount necessary in order to please an anti-war MSM. At times Bush seemed to lose sight of the fact that it was a war and people die in wars and the sooner you win it the sooner people stop dying.

    So yeah, great analogy except for the part where you missed the whole point.

  • bobdog

    Underpinning the liberal view of the world is a condescending core belief that ordinary people out here in flyover country are too stupid to know what’s good for them. The fact that what they say makes no sense at all is not relevant.

    That includes Bruce’s comment. Does anybody have any idea what he’s talking about? Way too nuanced for me.

  • jim m

    Bobdog, It’s really quite simple:

    Bruce takes a slap at conservatives comparing them to drug addicted morons and he implies that conservatives are responsible for all the problems the country faces due to their greed and blood lust.

    He then paints Barry and his chicom friends as our messiah who will let us fix everything at no cost and the GOP as a bunch of idiots who ant to keep the country in poverty.

    Of course the problem is that while the GOP did a lousy job in terms of fiscal responsibility, Much of the problem is the result of dem programs and regulations particularly in he housing market. The implication that borrowing money from the Chinese is easy and cheap and without any negative consequence is naive in the extreme.

    Barry’s debt is already 3x what Bush accumulated. The debt will crush our economy. Government cannot spend us out of recession. FDR prolonged the depression rather than shorten it. Cutting government spending is not a hair shirt policy for salvation, it is saying that I can do with something off the rack rather than borrowing a fortune to keep myself in designer Italian clothing.

  • SCSIwuzzy

    SteveP, I asked you a question a while back…
    What is the right level of profit for a business?
    What is the profit margin of your business?

  • jim m

    I suspect SteveP will have the typical liberal double standard on profit. For his business he will say that he works really hard and that he doesn’t earn a profit but rather provides income for his family. His income should not be limited because he works hard at his business.

    But for other companies the answer is that they should not be making any profit. They are not working for themselves but for greedy investors. I am sure that Steve lacks any self awareness that his income is a function of profit.

    Steve will also assert that his business benefits the community whereas big corporations are predatory and out to screw the little man.

  • Bruce Henry

    I thought you guys would have fun with my little exercise, dashed off on the fly.

    As flawed an analogy as it admittedly was, Jim, it didn’t say what you said it did. Didn’t compare “conservatives” with drug addicts, didn’t paint “Barry” or anybody else as a Messiah, didn’t claim that borrowing money from China would be easy or free from consequences. Whose comment did you read?

    But that’s what you do, Jim, actually what many Wizbang commenters do. You in particular always want to translate what someone says into a wierd version of “what they meant.” You’re forever telling us “how liberals think,” or about the “alternate reality” we live in. Or what secret unspoken motives “Barry” has for saying this or doing that, because of Wright, or Ayers, or some other boogeyman who supposedly “mentored” the future President.

    Don’t believe me? Go back through all the threads you comment on. See how many of your comments fit my description of them.

    And Mr Bobdog! You do grasp the hilarity of your comment, right? In the first paragraph, you claim that I’m condescending, that I think you’re too stupid to understand what I’m talking about. In the second paragraph, you admit you don’t know what I’m talking about. That’s gold.

  • Jeff Blogworthy

    Bruce Henry,

    Really? Try this analogy. Suppose you buy a house and are living quite comfortably. However your neighbors resent your happiness to the point where they make threats on your life. You decide to ignore them. Presently, you find your house vandalized in various ways but decide that continued pacifism is the answer. Next your car is firebombed. You respond by nicely asking them to stop attacking you.

    Next they break into your garage and explode a bomb inside, but they are inept so the damage is contained completely within your garage (WTC1). Although the people responsible are part of a large gang with the same goals you are happy when two or three of them are caught.

    Subsequently, other gang members steal two large semi-trucks and drive them through your living room, killing many family members. Luckily, your family is the size of the Waltons’ and you live in a mansion, so you can absorb the loss. You respond by telling yourself that this is happening to you because you deserve it. If any family members decide to retaliate, you tell them that they will be ‘dead to you’ and disowned.

    You keep waiting to see what happens next while half your excommunicated family members decide to fight for their lives. You spend the rest of your short, miserable life warring with the portion of your family who left.

    It is not a perfect analogy, but close enough.

  • http://www.antiwar.com Joseph Zrnchik

    McVeigh = Government

    Ludwig Von Mises, in his seminal opus magnum on economics, titled “Human Action”, proffers that governments, states commissions, and groups do not act, only individuals can act. He states that it is only the individual that carries out actions while people recognize the action as being “governmental”. Yet, there can be no better description of McVeigh’s bombing of the Murrah Federal Building than to say it was governmental.

    In a documentary on television, survivors and families of the dead all spoke of the evil of McVeigh. They felt that McVeigh turned his hatred on them as a way of coping with what he had done. Others felt he was a soulless individual who was devoid of feeling. They all described how McVeigh victimized them and what an amoral and detached monster he was, not having any remorse for the innocent he killed. Yet, let us examine what government is, these people, and their relation to government.

    When the Vietnamese decided they wanted to try to order their economic system on an idea that went against the interests of the U.S.’s power elite, the U.S. government (again, a fictitious entity made up of individual actors) decided it was okay to lie about an attack in the Gulf of Tonkin incident and thereby begin a war that would kill over three million people. The very same type of people who all describe their amazement, horror, disgust, and anger, that McVeigh could perpetrate his act without any sorrow or remorse and steel himself from recognizing and accepting the horror that he has perpetrated as wrong, are the very same people who justify every horror committed by government and never give a second thought to the five hundred thousand innocent children the U.S. caused to die in a decade-long embargo against Iraq to pressure Saddam.

    These same people have managed to not care one iota as to what actions their government carried out in their name and are quite content to remain ignorant. These same people managed to personally and morally disconnect from themselves any sense of remorse, guilt, or sorrow, to the point of even failing to investigate what government did at Waco and Ruby Ridge, and allow it to cover-up even the assassination of Kennedy by placing it under permanent seal. Most of these people who work for government feel vindicated at whatever actions are carried out because these actions were carried out by a fictitious entity called government. It is the fact that these people felt unaccountable for things their government did because of their ignorance and apathy, but it is their very ignorance and apathy that makes them culpable for the actions of government.

    Those who bow down to government, subconsciously deify government, or rather the individual actors who act as government. When government acts, they view these actions as inevitable and unstoppable acts of nature. However, as Noam Chomsky said, “There is no reason to accept the doctrines crafted to sustain power and privilege, or to believe that we are constrained by mysterious and unknown social laws. These are simply decisions made within institutions that are subject to human will and that must face the test of legitimacy. And if they do not meet the test, they can be replaced by other institutions that are more free and more just, as has happened often in the past.”

    Every one of these people failed to recognize that over and over again, individual actors, calling themselves government, decided to live by the sword. Our government, or rather the people we allow to call themselves government, decided they held no moral responsibility to any action they perpetrated so long as it was “simply decisions made within institutions that are subject to human will”. Yet, these people all detach themselves by believing that they and events are constrained by mysterious and unknown social laws.

    These people, all of them, felt that McVeigh displayed the height of vanity for clinically detaching himself from the horror he perpetrated, much like the pilots on Wikileaks video felt while they slaughtered an unarmed news crew, and then slaughtered unarmed rescuers, and seriously wounded the children of the rescuers. I am sure it is much like the vanity McVeigh felt the ATF, FBI, and military personnel displayed while they slaughtered the Branch Davidians, or the vanity, justification, and irresponsibility people felt at what “government” perpetrated and then covered up at Ruby Ridge and Waco. McVeigh was right in that “the government had declared war against the people”.

    After the ATF, FBI, and military personnel slaughtered innocents at Waco, these same people, who were made victims by McVeigh, never considered even taking the time to watch “Waco: Rules of Engagement” and “Waco: A New Revelation”. While they worked for but were apathetic and ignorant of the acts of a fictitious entity called government that operates by the principle that “Might makes right.”, and that lives by the sword, these people were upset when that same sword drew blood from them.

    When this fictitious entity calling itself government decides to use another fictitious entity called “the military” to kill a million more people to meet its political, economic, or military goals, we feel no personal accountability. People are placed on the battlefield to slaughter others. If no military is there to slaughter, like in Iraq, the fictitious entity carries out “operations” which then describe the aggregate of murder committed by individuals by slaughtering non-combatants just to show we can, and to show those who oppose us are helpless.

    Then, our “government” installs a group of people the indigenous population who will call itself government and slaughter its own people, or allow the slaughter of its people, at our discretion, in order to help our “government” meet its war aims. This fictitious entity made up of individual actors then begins starving, torturing, and murdering its opponents, all individual acts done by individuals. If this fictitious organization, made up of individuals, decides it needs to kill another million people to pacify the population, that million become even less than an abstraction to individuals from the invading country and the “government” the invaders installed.

    Hans Herman Hoppe writes, “a government is a compulsory territorial monopolist of ultimate decision-making (jurisdiction) and, implied in this, a compulsory territorial monopolist of taxation. That is, a government is the ultimate arbiter, for the inhabitants of a given territory, regarding what is just and what is not, and it can determine unilaterally, i.e., without requiring the consent of those seeking justice or arbitration, the price that justice-seekers must pay to the government for providing this service.” More importantly, government claims a monopoly on the use of violence within that territory. McVeigh was not going to abide by a monopoly and allow that monopoly to dictate or determine what he regarded as the retribution that needed to be placed upon government. As with any monopoly, the price of services become greater and greater and the quality of services becomes less and less. Then, the monopoly creates and causes conflict so as to be the arbiter in its own causes thereby expanding its own power and deciding in its own favor. In the United States we claim the people are the government. If this is true, it makes perfect sense that “the people” and “the government” are one in the same, so when McVeigh attacked the government and knew collateral damage would include people, it was no different than when bomber pilots know they are going to kill innocents when they drop their bombs.

    Hoppe goes on to say about government that, ” Rather, an institution such as government would normally, and from the outset, be regarded as an illegitimate and indeed criminal protection racket. And as a protection racket, this institution would tend to be brought down quickly. It is only possible for such an institution to survive for any length of time if and insofar as it succeeds in instilling in the “protected” public a myth, i.e., a false yet generally held, and hence effective, belief. In order to make the public accept, i.e., not to resist, the protection racket, it must be persuaded that without a monopoly of jurisdiction and taxation (that is, in what has been called a “state of nature”) constant warfare among individual property owners would exist. I have called this belief the Hobbesian myth and identified it as the most powerful and widespread myth of the modern world.”

    Regarded as one of, if not the greatest, living American writer and essayist, Gore Vidal wrote of McVeigh: “For Timothy McVeigh [Waco and Ruby Ridge] became the symbol of [federal] oppression and murder. Since he was suffering from an exaggerated sense of justice, not a common American trait, he went to war pretty much on his own and ended up slaughtering more innocents than the Feds had at Waco. Did he know what he was doing when he blew up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City because it contained the hated [Feds]? McVeigh remained silent throughout his trial. Finally, as he was about to be sentenced, the court asked him if he would like to speak. He did. He rose and said, “I wish to use the words of Justice Brandeis dissenting in Olmstead to speak for me. He wrote, ‘Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or ill, it teaches the whole people by its example.’” Then McVeigh was sentenced to death by the government.”

    “Those present were deeply confused by McVeigh’s quotation. How could the Devil quote so saintly a justice? I suspect that he did it in the same spirit that Iago answered Othello when asked why he had done what he had done. “Demand me nothing, what you know you know, from this time forth I never will speak word.” Now we know, too: or as my grandfather used to say back in Oklahoma, “Every pancake has two sides.”‘

    Timothy McVeigh made the following quotes:

    -”Additionally, borrowing a page from U.S. foreign policy, I decided to send a message to a government that was becoming increasingly hostile.”

    -”Based on observations of the policies of my own government, I viewed this action as an acceptable option.”

    -”Bombing the Murrah Federal Building was morally and strategically equivalent to the U.S. hitting a government building in Serbia, Iraq, or other nations.”

    -”I explain this not for publicity, nor seeking to win an argument of right or wrong, I explain so that the record is clear as to my thinking and motivations in bombing a government installation.”

    -”Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or ill it teaches the whole people by its example.” -Justice Brandeis

    -”When an aggressor force continually launches attacks from a particular base of operations, it is sound military strategy to take the flight to the enemy.”

    McVeigh went on to write to Vidal, “Although I have many observations that I’d like to throw at you, I must keep this letter to a practical length – so I will mention just one: if federal agents are like “so many Jacobins at war” with the citizens of this country, and if federal agencies “daily wage war: against those citizens, then should not the OKC bombing be considered a “counter-attack” rather than a self-declared war? Would it not be more akin to Hiroshima than Pearl Harbor? (I’m sure the Japanese were just as shocked and surprised at Hiroshima – in fact, was that anticipated effect not part and parcel of the overall strategy of that bombing?)”
    Our government, or rather individual actors who call themselves government, have become violent, arbitary, abusive, punitive, dishonest, power-hungry, malevolent, and domineering. They refuse to be bound by any laws. They accept no limit on their behavior and often do harm just to show citizens that their rule is almost absolute. They operate, more often than not, on the principle that their might makes them right. Well, sometimes patriots stand up and decide that, on this piece of ground, and at this time, I will claim the right to use force. I will violate that monopoly government has on the use of violence because this government is acting in a criminal manner and I am determined to wage war back.
    Gore Vidal then wrote: “McVeigh quotes again from Justice Brandeis; “Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or ill it teaches the whole people by its example.” He stops there. But Brandeis goes on to write in his dissent, “Crime is contagious. If the government becomes the law breaker, it breeds contempt for laws; it invites every man to become a law unto himself.” Thus the straight-arrow model soldier unleashed his terrible swift sword and the innocent died. But then a lawless government, Brandeis writes, “invites anarchy”. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means – to declare that the government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal – would bring terrible retribution.”
    If there were more Timothy McVeighs there would certainly be much less tyranny. Imagine if McVeigh was able to get next to Hitler or Stalin. Both killed tens of millions of people and yet the tens of thousands of people who could have killed these two failed to take any action due to fear for their own life. McVeigh valued certain principles more than his life and he would not tolerate tyranny and allow a criminal entity to have a monopoly on the use of violence.

    I do not justify the actions of McVeigh, I merely seek to point out that inside each of us are aspects of Timothy McVeigh. That we feel blameless, detached, and sometimes enthusiastic when our government kills innocents should make us recognize the murder committed by McVeigh pales in comparison to the victims of our government. Our apathy and ignorance makes us display the same lack of moral responsibility and detachment that McVeigh felt. We should understand that we are morally culpable to some extent because we allow mass murder to happen through purposeful ignorance and apathy. We should consider this when we allow individual actors to hide behind the title of “government” to perpetrate crimes against humanity or commit other less tyrannical or criminal acts.

    If McVeigh had planned and executed his attack by bomber against Iraq, a country that had no nuclear program, no chemical program, no yellow cake uranium, no centrifuges, no connection to bin Laden, 9/11, or al Qaeda, and he hit a mosque and killed many hundreds of children on behalf of a fictitious entity called government, not only would his mistake have never come to the public’s mind, but he would also be considered a hero regardless of the slaughter of innocents.

  • Jeff Blogworthy

    JZ,

    Interesting, well-written post with a high nuttiness factor. I am sure that you have extrapolated Von Mises’ words to a meaning he never intended. Individual authority or justice (vigilantism) does not equal civil authority or justice no matter how you spin it. It is true that the policeman must act as an individual. Nevertheless, the policeman does not derive his authority from himself.

  • SCSIwuzzy

    Jeff,
    You give the troll too much credit.
    That’s a cut and paste screed he lifted from another site. I’ve seen it before.
    But hey, if plagiarism is acceptable for someone that lives in the US Naval Observatory, that must be the modern standard.

  • bobdog

    “And Mr Bobdog! You do grasp the hilarity of your comment, right? In the first paragraph, you claim that I’m condescending, that I think you’re too stupid to understand what I’m talking about. In the second paragraph, you admit you don’t know what I’m talking about. That’s gold.”

    No, Bruce, I meant that your analogy was incoherent, as even you admitted. No personal insult was intended.

Optimization WordPress Plugins & Solutions by W3 EDGE