Statists Sue The US Government - by Mark E. Smith
Here's a link to the article I'm going to comment on, an open letter from one of the plaintiffs suing the US government over NDAA. Please read the link before continuing:
Statists are people who believe in the state, the government, and wish simply to reform it rather than to oppose it. Because they believe in the system, however flawed and misguided it may be, they work within the system rather than against the system. These plaintiffs voted to delegate to government the power to make decisions for them, and are now protesting the abuse of the power that they themselves gave away freely to known abusers. Here are two of the many reasons they are doomed to fail:
1. They have an incorrect understanding of their rights. The only rights we really have are those which we can exercise and defend. Any rights we cannot exercise and defend, are not rights which we possess.
2. They believe that they have Constitutional rights. Should they win their case in the lower courts, the Supreme Court will set them straight on this point. We have the unalienable rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, rights which are inherent and can neither be granted nor taken away by any government or state. Of course we only have these unalienable rights to the extent that we can exercise and defend them, as I've said. Constitutional rights are merely provisional rights granted by the government or state. Any rights granted by a government or state, can be taken away at whim by that same government or state. They are in no sense unalienable. They are, at best, temporarily granted privileges, not rights.
The ability of a government or state to act secretly thwarts the ability of citizens to defend their rights. You can't defend against something you don't know is attacking you. No citizen should ever support the right of any government to secrecy. A representative form of government requires an informed electorate, so the moment a government claims the right to secrecy, it is no longer representative. In other words, if elected officials are public servants, the public, their master, has a right to know what they're doing on the public dime. If you were an employer, would you pay a worker if you had no right to know how they spent their time during working hours? Both parties to a contract have the right to know that the other party is fulfilling their contractual responsibilities. If one party secretly violates the contract, the contract is void.
Most importantly, these plaintiffs are suing because they want assurance that the US government is violating the Golden Rule, i.e., that it is not treating them the same way that it treats others. They want to know that the US government will not treat them the way it treats real or assumed enemy combatants, and that, unlike the lives of innocent people in other countries, their own lives are too precious to be shrugged off as collateral damage. The US government is one of the world's leading arms dealers. It is a capitalist country and is concerned about protecting profits, not people. Killing innocents at home can be as profitable as killing innocents abroad, for those who sell the weapons to militaries, law enforcement, and to both government and privatized death squads. To even think about interfering with the profits of corporations such as defense contractors and arms dealers by setting limits on who can be killed with their weapons, is defined as Homegrown Terrorism under US law.
These plaintiffs all think of themselves as good, well-intentioned people. They are merely asking the government to become what they believe it is, or was, or could be, rather than what it actually is. They have seen less evil governments, therefore they refuse to accept that the US government is inherently and irreformably evil. They have overlooked the genocide of Native Americans, slavery, a history of illegal and unwarranted military interventions in sovereign nations, and the existence of the prison-industrial complex, so that they can cling to their myth of a potentially benevolent government--a government that they, in their ignorance, apathy, and lack of concern for humanity, continue to vote for no matter what evil it does.
This lawsuit is nothing more than a symbolic and futile gesture. Even if the Supreme Court were to rule against the government, and the government were to agree to abide by the Constitution, it will not. There is no treaty or agreement that the US government has ever signed or been a party to that it has not broken, violated, or exempted itself from. It has never operated in good faith and never will. It cannot, as there is no profit in it. Profit derives from exploitation, not from equitable dealings and justice.
These plaintiffs are suing the system and working within the system because they believe in the system. They will be lucky to retain their health and their lives, and merely forfeit their sanity, if they can be said to be sane. Because the truth is what Mumia Abu Jamal, in his book Jailhouse Lawyers, quotes the brilliantly sane Delbert Africa of MOVE of having stated, "...this System always betray those that believe in it!" Had they read and understood Mumia's book, these plaintiffs could have saved their time, energy, money and sanity. But they're believers, reformists, and statists, so they cannot and will not understand until after it is too late--after they have created false hopes in the hearts of other ignorant people who will once again cast their uncounted ballots to authorize the government to do whatever the hell it wants to without bothering to tell them about it.
The answer isn't to ask the state to reform itself. The answer is to stop delegating authority to the state. If you know something is wrong, stop doing it, and stop enabling those who are doing it. Take responsibility. These moderates and progressives continued to vote for the state even after they'd seen what it had done to Delbert Africa and many like him. They may voice mild objections to genocide, torture, police brutality, and mass incarceration, but they'll continue to vote for it. They look, talk and act just like real people, but many of them are lacking hearts and souls. Until they begin to understand the Golden Rule, that everyone, not just some, must be treated with respect and dignity, that an injury to one is an injury to all, and that what goes around comes around, they are not really part of the human race and their lawsuit is of no relevance to the world.
- Ramona Africa Talks MOVE, Liberation and Surviving 1985 Bombing - by Lamont Lilly
- Open Letter to Lynne Stewart, Ralph Poynter, and Friends - by Mark E. Smith
- Say It Ain't So - by Michael Marking
- The Dynamics of Power in a Corrupt Society - by Mark E. Smith
- Please Smoke - By Peter Brimelow
- Why I’m Not Voting - by Lara Gardner
- Spain Hasn’t Had a Federal Government for the Last 9 Months — and People Love It - by Derrick Broze
- Doctor Warns – 80% of Medical Studies are Advertisements for Big Pharma - by Christina Sarich
- How Corrupt America Is - by Eric Zuesse
- The People Are the Story–and Corporate Media Are Missing It - by Janine Jackson
- Memorial Day, May 30, 2016, Portland, Oregon Vietnam Memorial - by S. Brian Willson
- Statement on Decommissioning Nukes - by Ace Hoffman
- Everything solid vanishes at the polls - by Raúl Zibechi
- Driving Out the Mosquitoes: Making Homelessness Illegal - by Dennis J. Bernstein
- I Helped Create ISIS - by Vincent Emanuele
- The Pecking Order is for Chickens - by Mark E. Smith
- Beat Writer Pedophiles and the White Male Leftists Who Love Them - by Mickey Z.
- A Dillar, A Dollar.... - by Mark E. Smith
- Do We Really Want a New World War With Russia? - by F. William Engdahl