Are we “subjects” or are we free citizens? Are we “self owning” or “subjects of the State”? I’m afraid the answer today is that we are far more “subjects” than we were when King George the Third was King. Pretty much all King George wanted from us was “taxes”.
King George wouldn’t have cared about illicit drugs (some of these drugs did exist then). King George wouldn’t have cared about prescription laws or giving doctors a monopoly over access to medical drugs. It does appear that King George favored “gun control”, but the same can be said of President Obama. King George didn’t “favor” the “professions” by giving them the sort of monopolies that exist today. Obama does. King George would not have forced people to buy health insurance or fined them if they didn’t. Obama does. Just about all King George the Third wanted was “taxes” to pay for the “French-Indian” war. Most likely the “taxes” that King George wanted from us was a small fraction of the taxes we now pay to the federal government under President Obama. As the war had been fought to “protect” the colonies from the French, perhaps King George did have a “point” here. We’re paying for World War 2, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War 1, and Gulf War 2. Except for World War 2, we were never attacked by military forces of another nation. 9-11 was the actions of a small group of terrorists financed by a Saudi multi-millionaire. There was no justification for attack Iraq, which had no involvement in the events that took place on 9-11-2001. Nor was there any justification for attacking Iraq because it supposedly had “chemical weapons”. A number of other countries, including Syria have chemical weapons, but we have not attacked them because of their possession of such weapons. The same is true with nuclear weapons, which a number of countries possess, along with others who likely do possess such weapons, but not with 100% assurance.
It rather looks here that we’ve allowed our own government to become more oppressive than the British government we fought during our Revolution. We have become to a much greater degree “subjects” of our own government than we ever were of Great Britain’s. If we are “subjects” (to be honest, “property”) of the federal government, then it would appear that the federal government has done the correct thing in passing laws against “illicit” drugs, passing prescription laws because doctors are considered more “competent” than the rest of us to decide how to treat any illness we happen to have. The same thing applies to virtually any service performed by a professional (one reason their incomes are as high as they are). We are in the eyes of our governments less and less competent to make decisions for ourselves in virtually anything today. To government we are seen as little children incompetent to take care of ourselves… We can call this the “Nanny State” where “nanny” knows what is “best” for us. And as the “property” of the State, the State sees to it that we are prevented from harming ourselves. One reason being of course as “subjects”, the State can use us as its “property” in wars against other States. This is really where the justification for the “draft” comes from. Being “property”, we can be used in warfare much as any other weapon is so used… Nor are we given a choice in such matters since it is a matter of either “serving” as the State so desires, or being put into prison for a number of years if we cannot escape from the draft.
Matters are entirely different in a society run on libertarian principles. People in such a society are “self owners”, considered capable of making their own decisions regarding drugs, medical drugs, pornography, prostitution, and all other “victimless crimes”. Because in a libertarian society, a crime must always have a victim or the action must be one that endangers others. Any action that affects only the person involved is their own affair. People are considered “rational”, capable deciding for themselves what to do about such matters. Thus there are no drug laws, no prescription laws, and no laws favoring professionals over anyone else. The same is true for all occupational regulation. People are considered “competent” to make these decisions for themselves. Competent to make arrangements for their own retirement, for their own health care, and so forth. Competent to carry the means of their own self defense too. Something no “State” today really likes, perhaps out a fear that those who are able to deal with such issues are far less likely to support the sort of a “Nanny State” that we have created for ourselves here in the USA. With examples in other countries of what such a policy eventually leads to!
The very existence of a country with a society organized on libertarian principles seems to terrify governments of the sort we see today. The reason is that a libertarian society would have a far smaller government, one based hopefully upon the principles of “demarchy” where representation would be based upon “lot” instead of elections where the candidate with the most financing generally ends up the winner. And since such politicians owe their victory to those who financed their campaigns, we can expect from experience that they will as representatives serve the interests of those who provided them with the money to run for office. Not a good way of doing things if you really do want a government whose representatives will actually represent the people, not just the rich and the big corporations as appears to be increasingly the case today. We’d be far better off with representatives who actually are “of the people” as opposed to the present makeup of Congress where the majority of Senators are from the professional classes with considerable numbers of the same sort professionals also making up the House of Representatives! No doubt they do a good job of representing their own class, but what about the rest of us? My local state representative is a public high school science and math teacher. No doubt she is “smart” enough, but it appears that her major interest there in the State of Michigan legislature is getting more money for the public schools. Along with higher pay for the teachers. The money for all this of course has to come out of the taxpayer’s pocket, and for all the money they get, the quality of education does not seem that good considering how many fail to graduate along with those able to obtain further education. I’m 100% in favor of vouchers, vouchers payable to anyone who can educate a child one grade level as verified by comphensive testing. I’m afraid however that my representative wouldn’t like this if she happens to read it, but that’s the way it is.