The Laughing Wolf

Citizens Vs. Subjects: An Object Lesson

Over on Who Tends The Fires yesterday, I was led to a story that provides an invaluable lesson in the dangers faced by the Republic. The greatest danger we face comes not from outside, but from within. For building and cities can be rebuilt, bigger and better than before, but if the foundations of our Republic are destroyed, there is nothing that can be done to repair or replace.

The story begins here, and is continued at here. Now, aside from the normal howls of outrage, let’s look at why this is so dangerous.

I will skip the egregious breach of law and common sense, to cut to the heart of the matter. The real problem is that when this type of thing happens and is not fought, the civilizations in which they occurred have not long survived. More than that, I can find no example in history where such behavior has not let to concentration camps, gulags, killing fields, re-education centers, or similar. If anyone can provide me an example, particularly in the last 150 years, I would love to hear about it.

Let’s look at this as a mater of citizenship. Our country was founded on the concept of individual liberty and individual responsibility. A citizen has the right and responsibility to debate issues and take part in government. A citizen has the right to travel and do as they please provided they do not infringe the rights of others. A citizen is expected to exercise responsibility to protect themselves and their country at need, from all enemies foreign and domestic.

Contrast that with subjects, who often need permission to travel and can only take what the state says they need with them, even when traveling with said country. A subject is not expected to take part in government and often is refused all say in government, or at best given token an ineffectual role. A subject is not allowed to defend themselves or to own or use effective means of defense. The role of a subject in war is most often as cannon fodder, from ancient days to modern. If you need a good example of this, look at the bulk of Iraqi troops in both Gulf wars. Take a look around at almost any totalitarian regime, and you will find large percentage of troops who are taught to obey orders from their superiors/betters. The penalty for thinking, acting with initiative, or disobeying said orders is summary execution.

Americans are citizens, but the trend for the last 70 or so years has been towards an all-encompassing and all-protective state, with resultant decline of individual liberties and most especially individual responsibility. One of the brightest spots in this move, however, is that the American military has continued to foster the concepts and traditions of individual responsibility and initiative. It is without a doubt one of the reasons that our military is as good as it is.

What happened to this individual was, however, a sign that many in government see people not as citizens, but as subjects. They see themselves not as public servants, but as public masters. The late Robert Heinlein wrote about this, and the story as presented here is a classic example of this type of thinking and behavior.

Note the way in which the subject was treated, and how things have been handled. From experience with bureaucracy at its best, it probably went something like this: Oh, a cylindrical object. He must have an unlicensed silencer or something else illegal. After all, he is not one of us, so why would he need these things? He is up to something.

When it turned out not to be the case, the overreaching of authority turns to covering of behinds. Hence, desperate attempts to manufacture something out of a T-shirt and other items that any citizen is allowed to have. Hence the leading and long interrogations, in an attempt to find anything to justify the actions taken.

One thing eluded the people involved, but it is an important thing. They know they are the masters, and have the moral imperatives to do what they are doing in a holy cause. The silence and the fact that any of the people involved did not scream or defy them is, to their minds, proof of their moral superiority.

It would never occur to them that failure to refute moral lessons imparted as suggestions to change lifestyles was anything other than acknowledgement of their superiority. They will never consider the fact that what was instead going on was “I have to keep quiet because I don’t trust you not to further abuse your power and pervert justice. If I refute you and do it well, you will be mad and then will take it out on the person in your custody by any and all means.” Yet, that is what such silence most often means.

It means the subject does not trust those in authority not to engage in physical or mental abuse of the prisoner; to make the passage through the legal (not justice) system as painful, expensive, and as nasty as possible; to do everything to keep the lawful property of said prisoner as their own; and, to extend that process to the subject themselves.

The truly sad thing is that individual liberty and individual responsibility would give us far greater safety and at a far lower cost. A nation of citizens is always better able to react, defend, and restore than a nation of subjects. Tragedies can and will still occur, but when every citizen is ready to do their duty, it cuts down on many of the opportunities for tragedy.

Then again, that is something that often lies at the heart of the matter. When you have citizens, government is most often small and does not take much of the economic pie. When you have subjects, you have a large government that takes a large part of the pie. Government agencies look for ways to grow, because with growth comes more resources and more power for those involved. As this happens, they tend to look with growing disfavor on citizens and to find ways to make them subjects.

What happened here appears to be a perversion of justice and a flagrant abuse of power. Take a look at the bit about if you don’t fight us and agree that we were right, we will cut the fine in half. I pray that the people involved don’t do this. Because if they do they will be admitting before law that they were in the wrong. That they knowingly and willfully broke the law. When an offer like this is usually made, it is because the other parties know they screwed up and are looking to cover their behind. They have the power and the ability to use and abuse it. They can make you pay, on many levels, and that threat is clear. To sweeten the deal, if you agree to it you have just admitted that you were in the wrong, they were right, and the legal precedent is set. You can never fight them again. The fact that they were set to bleed you dry and make your life as much a hell as they can is not precedent or even relevant anymore. All that will matter is that you admitted you were in the wrong, even if all you were doing was exercising your rights in a lawful and responsible manner.

What has happened here is a travesty and an outrage that needs to be stamped out. To that end, I think that one way to do so is to shine a large light here. Get the story out, let your representatives know about it and that you are outraged by it. Best yet, see about making a donation to cover the legal fees and other losses encountered here. You see, if people provide legal fees, that means that one of the largest threats here is negated. That will help a lot, and sends a very powerful message to the would-be civil masters.

We are still citizens, and you are not our masters. You serve us, not we you. This we will defend, just as we will defend our country against terrorists or anyone who would attack or threaten it. Most of all, we will not destroy our country ourselves. This we will defend.

-30-