Contact Us    
Withdrawing Consent

Power to the People? How about power to no one?

by James Leroy Wilson
September 17, 2009

Bookmark and Share
Withdrawing Consent

If you lived all your life in a concentration camp and there was no chance of escape, would you fantasize about what you'd do if you ran it? Would you dream of uniting it with other concentration camps? Or would you think it would be better if the camp was broken up into smaller concentration camps?

Probably none of the above, unless you didn't even realize you lived in a concentration camp.

But what if you were the only one who realized you lived in a concentration camp, and everyone else was scheming and debating about the best "system" to put in place?

You would probably tell them that they are actually living in a concentration camp, and that their schemes and debates only serve to persuade the powerful that the camp has the people's underlying consent.

When personally powerless to stop encroachments on their freedom, the people can at least withdraw their consent. This weakens the powerful. The Eastern bloc fell because of it.

Since 9/11, the nature of the U.S. regime has revealed itself more and more, year by year. Withdrawing consent is the best way out.

9/11 provided an opportunity for unending wars, massive surveillance, and record spending. 9/11 benefited the powerful. Government rewarded its failure with even bigger government. It makes one wonder what really transpired that day.

Especially considering that Osama bin Laden is not wanted by the FBI for the 9/11 attacks. (He is wanted for the 1998 embassy bombings, and is a "suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world.") Why not 9/11? "No hard evidence."

When Afghanistan's Taliban government demanded President Bush provide them evidence bin Laden was behind the attacks, Bush refused and decided to not only capture Al Qaeda but overthrow the Taliban as well.

That appears to have been the intention all along. The U.S. was evidently plotting war in Afghanistan in the summer of 2001 - before 9/11.

Almost eight years after invading Afghanistan, there is no signficant Al Qaeda presence in Afghanistan. But after initially being deposed, the Taliban is winning the war.

This is just one curiosity stemming from 9/11. Why did we attack Afghanistan anyway?

Another curiosity is possible Israeli intelligence foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks.

Still another is, how much did Pakistani Intelligence fund the alleged hijackers, and what, if anything, did they know of the attacks?

And of course, while the collapse of the Twin Towers was incredible, the collapse of Building 7 was unbelievable.

Myself, I don't know what to believe about 9/11, and studying it is not a hobby of mine. Whatever the story, it appears to me to be shrouded in coverups and lies. But even if I learn the truth, whether it was a surprise attack, an inside job, or something more complicated, my outlook probably won't change.  The problem isn't incompetent government, or evil government, or secret government. The problem is government, and the larger its jurisdiction, budget, scope, and power, the more incompetent, evil, and secretive it will be.

For many skeptics and "Truthers," however, 9/11 may only prove that neocons, or Republicans, or the Power Elite, are evil. The tragedy of 9/11 may lead them to question their religious faith. The reaction to 9/11 may lead them to question their faith in their own society, as they see the people are more upset by Kanye West's antics than by the government's response to 9/11. But 9/11 shaking faith in government per se? Hardly.

Leading 9/11 scholar David Ray Griffin believes we should replace national governments with global democracy. Instead of the fear of terrorism, he believes fear of global warming should be the central organizing principle of powerful government.

Canadian blogger Jeff Wells, who rails against "rugged individualism," is in despair, partly because 9/11 Truth has been taken over by the populist right.

Of which he may have a point. Social/global democratic Truthers and right-populist Truthers, who believe 9/11 was part of a global conspiracy, probably can't get along.

In any case, I perceive that the language can be similar. Both sides want "the people," not the ruling elite, to be in charge. Of course, the right believes the left-leaning "people" are being misled by the Ruling Elite, whereas the left believes the right-leaning "people" are being co-opted and duped as the Ruling Elite encourages their fear-mongering and paranoia.

In other words, the people are divided against themselves. They object to secrecy and abuse of power, but then are frightened by the personal choices of other people or the economic decisions of businesses . . . and go crawling back to government for answers.

Power to the "people" won't solve anything.

And the notion is ludicrous.

Imagine we had an absolute monarch instead. The monarch maintains defenses and enforces laws against force and fraud, and that's it. Should he be overthrown just because power isn't in "the people?"

Imagine the king told you what you could and couldn't grow in your own garden for your own consumption.

Wouldn't he then be viewed as a tyrant? He'd have no right to order you around in this way.

But hey, if FDR orders it, and the Supreme Court upholds it, it must be legitimate.  And of course, SWAT raids on medical marijuana patients are justifiable on the same grounds.

Decisions of elected Congresses and Presidents, with the stamp of the Supreme Court, give an air of legitimacy where there is none.

What if the king banned the publication of books criticizing himself? Or any book or movie? Or any form of expression at all, including advertising, that he didn't like?

He'd be viewed as a tyrant. He'd have no right to arbitrary impose his preferences on others.

Yet if censorship discourages negative campaigning and promotes "clean" elections, even movies and books could be banned in our democratically elected, republican form of government.

If a King forces you to give up your gold and mandates paper money as legal tender, which his bank prints up at will, no one would doubt who would be to blame for the recessions and inflations - and it wouldn't be "free market capitalism." The King would be guillotined.

Yet, it is almost beyond question that a government "of the people" has the right to tell you what you can and can't accept as money.

I could go on and on with examples, but here's the point: if the law would be intolerable if imposed by an absolute monarch, it can not be legitimate if passed by the "people" or their representatives. Not in Congress, not in a world parliament, and not in a state legislature.

If the 9/11 Truth Movement is correct and it was an inside job, we must not move to global "democratic" government. Nor can we go back to a system that assumes if it's in the Constitution, or if it's done at the state instead of the federal level, it is valid. 

We should instead lose our faith in government itself. Rather than hoping to reform it, transform it, or overthrow and replace it, we should instead reject it, protest it, and shrink it when and where we can.

We should withdraw our consent.


Comments (3)

Post a Comment

elm from 98801 writes:
September 17, 2009
Your article on power is worthy of much ponder. Need to control & need for power are inborn traits of people in general, always been, always will be. Plays a major role on government, daily contact, relationships and certain types of religion. Tool of the trade of controlers and power seekers is creating fear & terror.

God, Heaven & Hell story created & furthered by bad men of POWER would be an unacceptable practice in today's world. Burning at the stake went out too. The
absolute power God & fiery Hell story is terrorism. Of course it is! Believing a powerfull God throws people in hell & burns them forever & ever while they scream, does create TERROR along with men gaining control of the ignorant mass of a begone era. For some, that still works today. Many have spoke about absolute power. And, so it is! Historian & moralist John Acton (1834-1902) said " Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are always bad men." Earl of Charham & British Prime Minister (1766-1779) said, "Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it."

Dr. Lenny from Oregon writes:
September 18, 2009
One of the key question mark in my mind is whether upon falling the grubbermint attacks we the people or just lets it all go. If the feds, the states and the local governments just get out of the way, the real recovery will be a lot easier. Case in point - try to get a cob house through a building department. The absurdity at every level is immense.

I'm with you on the solution - we do have to withdraw our consent. This means not using federal reserve notes. It means turning off the switch on the mainstream cheerleaders in every media. In fact, developing new media that is interpersonally interactive is necessary and desirable.

Come visit my thought experiment - new rules prohibit the URL from being posted - but you can find my blog. Get howdt now, while we can

Kitty Antonik Wakfer from Casa Grande AZ & Harcourt Park ON writes:
September 19, 2009
"Rather than hoping to reform it, transform it, or overthrow and replace it, we should instead reject it, protest it, and shrink it when and where we can." Quite right, James, because government is *not* necessary for an orderly society.

It is clear that a better society is the desire of most, if not all, of the activists (and even those publicly silent but still) against high government taxes, choice-limiting regulations and abominations actually and likely perpetrated by police and military. However, it needs to be understood that the withdrawal of sanction and the practice of self-responsibility are both necessary for any real changes in human society which will benefit each member all at the same time. Governments exist because the majority of people are *not* self-responsible; they have not matured to full psychological and social adulthood despite having physically matured into biological adults. Encouraging dependency rather than self-responsibility is the practice of those who seek to attain or retain positions of authority backed by the legalized initiation of force - this being the effective description of any government.

I wrote an article last April (from which most of the preceding paragraph is an excerpt) that complements yours and actually gets to particular type recommended actions and the foundations of why. "Tax/Regulation Protests are Not Enough: Relationship of Self-Responsibility and Social Order" - it can be seen on SelfSIP.org and OpEdNews.com (Web search on "Tax/Regulation Protests are Not Enough" will readily find both the URLs.)

Send Us Your Opinion
(Comments are moderated.)
Your Name:*

Your E-Mail Address:*
(Confidential. Will not be published.)


Note: In order to control automated spam submissions, URLs are no longer permitted in this form.

Please type the letters you see above.


Bookmark and Share

» jim102670@yahoo.com

Ron Paul Is a Nut (and So Am I)
Published September 10, 2008

Forget about red states and blue states. Wilson's unique take on political topics is refreshingly not politics as usual.

» Buy Now
» More Information
RSS Feed for James Leroy Wilson: RSS Feed for James Leroy Wilson
Sign up to receive an e-mail notice when new articles by this author are published. Your address remains confidential, and you may cancel at any time. A confirmation email will be sent.

Your e-mail address:
po Books
Now Available!

Teachings of a Three Year Old... Turned Tyke,
by Hal Evan Caplan.

A father learns from the wisdom of his toddler.

More Information.

More by James Leroy Wilson
47 for 46 for 45
My favorite movies since when I was born
by James Leroy Wilson, 3/15/16
Hired Gun Quarterbacks
They rarely win the Super Bowl.
by James Leroy Wilson, 2/9/16
Fixing Football's Overtime
Get rid of the coin toss!
by James Leroy Wilson, 1/19/16
Solving the NBA's Conference Imbalance
Get rid of them!
by James Leroy Wilson, 5/26/15
The Problem of School
We develop differently, but arbitrary age rules punish us.
by James Leroy Wilson, 5/19/15
Deflating and defaming Tom Brady
Punishing without evidence
by James Leroy Wilson, 5/12/15
Should Floyd Mayweather be allowed to fight?
The Nevada Athletic Commission is wrong, but not for the reason you think.
by James Leroy Wilson, 4/28/15
» Complete List (565)

RSS Feed for James Leroy Wilson: RSS Feed for James Leroy Wilson

Recently Published
View Article A Prayer for the Divided States of America
Interceding for our Uncle Sam
by Greg Asimakoupoulos, 7/2/20
About Those Monuments
Why attempts to revise history is risky
by Greg Asimakoupoulos, 6/26/20
A Father's Day Wish List
What I pray for my progeny
by Greg Asimakoupoulos, 6/19/20
It's Time to Take a Stand
Contrasting two Georges
by Greg Asimakoupoulos, 6/12/20
"I Can't Breathe!"
Why Jesus understands George Floyd
by Greg Asimakoupoulos, 6/5/20
Like a Mighty Wind, God's Spirit
A new hymn for Pentecost Sunday
by Greg Asimakoupoulos, 5/29/20
Memorial Day is a Memory Jogger
Paying tribute to those who purchased our freedom
by Greg Asimakoupoulos, 5/22/20

Get the Partial Observer's
'recently published' headlines via RSS.

RSS Feed for Recently Published PO Articles    What is RSS?
Reproduction of original material from The Partial Observer without written permission is strictly prohibited.
The opinions expressed by site contributors do not necessarily reflect those of the editors.
Copyright ©2000-2020 partialobserver.com. All rights reserved.
Home · Site Map · Top