Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago spurred me to libertarianism, but I had read another book about mass murder, Hannah Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil a few years before when I was an undergraduate. I am re-reading Arendt's book and am struck by her controversial claim that the Judenraten, the Jewish administrative agencies that oversaw the holocaust, were in fact absolutely essential to the entire holocaust. In other words, Eichmann and the Nazis had to count not only on the Jews' submission, but on their cooperation, in seeing to their own deaths.
On page 125 Arendt writes:
"But the whole truth was that there existed Jewish community organizations and Jewish party and welfare organizations on both the local and the international level. Wherever Jews lived, there were recognized Jewish leaders, and this leadership almost without exception, cooperated in one way or another, for one reason or another, with the Nazis. The whole truth was that if the Jewish people had really been unorganized and leaderless, there would have been chaos and plenty of misery but the total number of victims would hardly have been between four and a half and six million people. (According to Freudiger's calculations about half of them could have saved themselves if they had not followed the instructions of the Jewish Councils. This is of course a mere estimate, which, however, jibes with the rather reliable figures from Holland and which I owe to Dr. L. de Jong, the head of the Netherlands State Institute for War Documentation. In Holland, where the Joodsche Raad like all the Dutch authorities very quickly became an 'instrument of the Nazis,' 103,000 Jews were deported to the death camps...Only five hundred and nineteen Jews returned...In contrast to this figure, ten thousand of those twenty to twenty-five thousand Jews, who escaped the Nazis--and that meant also the Jewish Council--and went underground survived; again forty to fifty per cent...)"
Why the willingness among Jews to comply with a government intent on killing them?
Arendt blames this on Nazism's causing a moral collapse, but I think that claim is incorrect. Similar phenomena were seen in the Soviet Union and China. It is not attributable to Nazism, but rather to the tribalist philosophy of socialism in general, to what Popper calls the "closed society". Moreover, elements of it exist here in the US and have increased in force as the public has become increasingly trusting and obsequious to the state. For example, if the US Supreme Court violates the law and claims the state's right to seize property for corrupt private interests, the public does not see a violent action but rather a justifiable state position.
The socialization of conscience has two additional sources. The first is ordinary conformity that the famous experiments of Stanley Milgram exposes. The second is the other directedness that David Riesman discusses in his Lonely Crowd.
Trust in government, other-directedness and conformity to state directed norms are associated with the socialist mode. In twentieth century Europe, the socialist mentality of compliance and support for the state had extended to a much greater extent than it has here in the United States. What is shocking about this process is that, given sufficient governmental and social pressure, and given Jews' widespread acceptance of the socialist model, Jews were willing to see themselves murdered rather than question the power of the German socialist state.
Should Americans comply with the dictates of government? With the IRS? Do we have a single reason to trust the government of George W. Bush or Barack Obama?
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Friday, February 19, 2010
Obama: All Americans to Live on Debt
Barack Obama has announced that he aims to prohibit natural resource extraction from a large part of the southwest. At the same time, he boasts that after seventy years of deficit spending the January unemployment rate of 9.7% proves that "stimulus" has stopped unemployment.
In a phone interview today, Mr. Obama announced that he aims to illegalize productive jobs and improve the economy through government spending and printing more money. "Jobs need not produce anything of value," Nancy Pelosi says. "Only reactionaries believe that work needs to produce something." Rather, according to Mr. Obama, "if we double the money supply, wealth will be doubled. With twice the number of dollars, we can afford to reduce output. The nation will become richer as we spend and go further into debt."
Tim Kaine, chair of the Democratic National Committee, agrees. "Progressives know that by borrowing, in the long term more money means greater wealth." Kaine said that he supports the Obama plan of mandating indebtedness of all Americans.
To implement the non-productive work policy, Mr. Obama is releasing an executive order. All productive work will be curtailed or eliminated. Future generations of Americans can choose from seven careers:
Mortgage lender
Real estate developer
School teacher
Investment banker
Trial attorney
Government bureaucrat
Drug and guidance counselor
All other forms of work will be eliminated. Americans will be required to borrow an unspecified sum each year. "Through the expansion of borrowing, all will become wealthy," according to Mr. Obama. "Anyone who tries to produce something will be subjected to IRS enforcement," he added.
In a phone interview today, Mr. Obama announced that he aims to illegalize productive jobs and improve the economy through government spending and printing more money. "Jobs need not produce anything of value," Nancy Pelosi says. "Only reactionaries believe that work needs to produce something." Rather, according to Mr. Obama, "if we double the money supply, wealth will be doubled. With twice the number of dollars, we can afford to reduce output. The nation will become richer as we spend and go further into debt."
Tim Kaine, chair of the Democratic National Committee, agrees. "Progressives know that by borrowing, in the long term more money means greater wealth." Kaine said that he supports the Obama plan of mandating indebtedness of all Americans.
To implement the non-productive work policy, Mr. Obama is releasing an executive order. All productive work will be curtailed or eliminated. Future generations of Americans can choose from seven careers:
Mortgage lender
Real estate developer
School teacher
Investment banker
Trial attorney
Government bureaucrat
Drug and guidance counselor
All other forms of work will be eliminated. Americans will be required to borrow an unspecified sum each year. "Through the expansion of borrowing, all will become wealthy," according to Mr. Obama. "Anyone who tries to produce something will be subjected to IRS enforcement," he added.
Ultimate Narcissist: Obama Aims to Raise Your Fuel Prices, Build Monuments to Himself
Fox News reports that Barack Obama intends to turn millions of acres of pristine wild land into a national monument (h/t Glenda McGee). Three potential sites in 11 western states are under consideration. The article notes:
"the mostly public lands include Arizona deserts, California mountains, Montana prairies, New Mexico forests, Washington islands and the Great Basins of Nevada and Colorado -- totaling more than 13 million acres."
The practical effect of this law would be to prevent development, including obtaining coal, oil and natural gas. Fox writes:
"Presidential use of the Antiquities Act is highly controversial because the White House, with the stroke of a pen, can lock up thousands of square miles of federal lands used for timber, ranching, mining and energy development without local input or congressional approval. The Act is generally interpreted to commemorate or protect a specific historical landmark, not prohibit development or deprive local communities of jobs and tax revenues."
Perhaps Mr. Obama plans to build a park full of monuments to himself.
This will not be the first time that Democrats have used laws to break the law. Clinton turned 1.3 million acres in Utah into a national monument in order to forestall all development. Note that the Bush administration lacked the courage to overturn the Clinton designation.
Glenda McGee points out a broader context in which this administrative step would occur. UN Agenda 21 is a broad plan to limit development in rural areas and confine human habitation to cities. Congressman Maurice Hinchey, the Congressman from the 22nd Congressional District in New York, has proposed a park federalization plan that might lead to depopulation of New York's Hudson Valley.
Fox points out that the inhabitants of Nevada and Utah where the park is proposed could stage a political revolt. Harry Reid, the Democratic Senate Majority Leader, comes from Nevada. This could mean the end not only of Reid but also of Democratic control of both houses.
If so, let us hope that the GOP at last grows a pair of avocados. Maybe they can use the park land for this agricultural purpose, even if agriculture has been outlawed.
"the mostly public lands include Arizona deserts, California mountains, Montana prairies, New Mexico forests, Washington islands and the Great Basins of Nevada and Colorado -- totaling more than 13 million acres."
The practical effect of this law would be to prevent development, including obtaining coal, oil and natural gas. Fox writes:
"Presidential use of the Antiquities Act is highly controversial because the White House, with the stroke of a pen, can lock up thousands of square miles of federal lands used for timber, ranching, mining and energy development without local input or congressional approval. The Act is generally interpreted to commemorate or protect a specific historical landmark, not prohibit development or deprive local communities of jobs and tax revenues."
Perhaps Mr. Obama plans to build a park full of monuments to himself.
This will not be the first time that Democrats have used laws to break the law. Clinton turned 1.3 million acres in Utah into a national monument in order to forestall all development. Note that the Bush administration lacked the courage to overturn the Clinton designation.
Glenda McGee points out a broader context in which this administrative step would occur. UN Agenda 21 is a broad plan to limit development in rural areas and confine human habitation to cities. Congressman Maurice Hinchey, the Congressman from the 22nd Congressional District in New York, has proposed a park federalization plan that might lead to depopulation of New York's Hudson Valley.
Fox points out that the inhabitants of Nevada and Utah where the park is proposed could stage a political revolt. Harry Reid, the Democratic Senate Majority Leader, comes from Nevada. This could mean the end not only of Reid but also of Democratic control of both houses.
If so, let us hope that the GOP at last grows a pair of avocados. Maybe they can use the park land for this agricultural purpose, even if agriculture has been outlawed.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Joseph Andrew Stack's Austin Murder/Suicide
The Joseph Andrew Stack tragedy is revealed in his suicide letter. Stack had evidently suffered some kind of breakdown. Unfortunately, no one ushered him into a psychiatrist's office before it was too late. Apparently he killed one other person and injured about 13.
There are a host of ethical questions that surround tax resistance. Unfortunately, Stack cannot be called a tax resister because he had lost his rational mind before he flew his plane into the Austin IRS office.
I do not believe that all violence against the IRS is wrong. In order to be right violence must amount to self defense or defense of property. The IRS is a violent organization that is illegal and engaged in illegitimate theft. However, to be morally right the degree of violence must be appropriate and be targeted against the perpetrators of violence or theft. Indiscriminate violence is wrong, especially because Stack could not know whether the people he was attacking even supported whatever wrongs he felt he had suffered (his statement alludes to but does not make clear the wrong).
Would Kelo of Kelo v. New London have been morally wrong to fly an airplane into the US Supreme Court building? The Supreme Court is obliged to interpret the law, and has failed to do so, facilitating the theft of Kelo's property. It is a violent, illegitimate institution. Kelo is entitled to self defense. But gratuitous violence is still wrong. Four of the justices voted against the decision to permit stealing. Flying a plane into the Supreme Court building would have been likely to injure or kill people who did nothing wrong. So it would have been wrong.
Would Susette Kelo have been right to murder the leadership of the City of New London or the Supreme Court Justices who justified the stealing of her property? I do not think the answer is clear cut. I cannot say she would have been wrong.
In the case of Stack, there were mitigating factors. But he was wrong. At the same time, because we no longer live in a nation governed by law, but by the gratuitous violence of the Internal Revenue Service and the US Supreme Court, I no longer react to someone like Stack the way I did toward Timothy McVeigh.
I wonder if Stack is only the beginning.
There are a host of ethical questions that surround tax resistance. Unfortunately, Stack cannot be called a tax resister because he had lost his rational mind before he flew his plane into the Austin IRS office.
I do not believe that all violence against the IRS is wrong. In order to be right violence must amount to self defense or defense of property. The IRS is a violent organization that is illegal and engaged in illegitimate theft. However, to be morally right the degree of violence must be appropriate and be targeted against the perpetrators of violence or theft. Indiscriminate violence is wrong, especially because Stack could not know whether the people he was attacking even supported whatever wrongs he felt he had suffered (his statement alludes to but does not make clear the wrong).
Would Kelo of Kelo v. New London have been morally wrong to fly an airplane into the US Supreme Court building? The Supreme Court is obliged to interpret the law, and has failed to do so, facilitating the theft of Kelo's property. It is a violent, illegitimate institution. Kelo is entitled to self defense. But gratuitous violence is still wrong. Four of the justices voted against the decision to permit stealing. Flying a plane into the Supreme Court building would have been likely to injure or kill people who did nothing wrong. So it would have been wrong.
Would Susette Kelo have been right to murder the leadership of the City of New London or the Supreme Court Justices who justified the stealing of her property? I do not think the answer is clear cut. I cannot say she would have been wrong.
In the case of Stack, there were mitigating factors. But he was wrong. At the same time, because we no longer live in a nation governed by law, but by the gratuitous violence of the Internal Revenue Service and the US Supreme Court, I no longer react to someone like Stack the way I did toward Timothy McVeigh.
I wonder if Stack is only the beginning.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
