The massive administrative federal government of the United States of America has over-reached and under-performed for so long that an important question has arisen. Does the government of the United States remain a legitimate authority? Is it a legitimate government? An illegitimate government cannot stand as such, and demands that its citizenry reform it or, if necessary, legally replace it before the illegitimacy devolves into outright tyranny.
Why do I say this?
This is a question that might be asked by a complacent & (dare I say) degenerate citizen. “Nothing is wrong with the ‘land of the free’ and the ‘home of the brave!’” the citizen might bellow loudly, while munching on GMO-carbohydrates soaked in vegetable oil and sugar and sipping on a sugar drink or a macro-beer. “Team America!” he might yell as he watches highlights of the US Armed forces bombing some destitute Middle Eastern country even further back into the stone age while nu-media panelists, confident in their ignorance, parrot the talking points that trickle down from lobbyists and their career politicians about “spreading democracy” and such while they rake in the military-industrial complex bucks.
To this very fair question, I could offer a multitude of responses. The failings, corruption, decadence and incompetence of the United States government — these are numerous. It would, in fact, be much harder to try to comprise any substantial list of things that the government, using its massive manpower and unlimited “budgets,” actually gets right. The government’s toxic partnerships — each of them — with Big Food, Big Pharma, Big Chem, Big Defense and Big Grievance are massive failures but they tend more toward corruption and graft than disqualifying legitimacy.
Here, for the purpose of brevity and clarity, I will focus on three very specific, provable characteristics of the United States’ government that may render it illegitimate.
- A government that abrogates — or fails to protect — its citizens’ natural right to free speech is tyrannical. Corollary: A tyrannical government is, by definition, not legitimate.
Human beings are born with an absolute right to free speech — separate from government influence and control. This paramount right is granted to each person by God and/or by natural law. It is either protected, or not, by governments in place from time-to-time, but the right itself is incontrovertible. It cannot be taken away from a person. It is true that the United States government has not, in tyrannical fashion, abolished the right of free speech outright. Rather, the government has abrogated its citizens’ right to free speech through fraud and/or incompetence. Namely, it has done so by out-sourcing censorship to its business partners.
Let me explain.
In the current year, the town square is virtual — and digital — in nature. To participate, an individual must, practically speaking, write or voice his thoughts or opinions via a digital medium and then share these views, or have the views broadcast, on one of the platforms maintained by the government’s partners, the mega-corporations. The meaningful platforms are YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook/Instagram. If a citizen is prevented from expressing legal speech in this digital town square, they are effectively silenced. Each of these platforms, which act in partnership with the federal government via legislative immunity, censor speech when it takes the form of opinions of which the platform owners or operators disapprove. Simultaneously, the platforms editorialize and amplify the views that they support.
In one instance, a lizard-like automaton and his digital minions censor the speech. In another instance, it’s a bearded human version of a soy latte and his woke lackeys wielding the hatchet of censorship. In another, an angry, aggressive female and her woke subordinates decide which videos can and cannot be posted. But in each case the right to free speech in the de facto town square is stripped from citizens. The government, after outsourcing monopolistic control to these mega-corporations, stands idly by as the censorship and exclusion occurs. It throws up its hands up and waves off responsibility for the resulting censorship as the acts of a non-governmental corporation.
However, with the outsourcing of the public square to these monopoloies comes the obligation to guarantee the right to speech on these platforms. The second must follow from the first, or the government is complicit and cannot be differentiated in any meaningful way from the censor; their partnership one and the same.
The failure to guarantee its citizens’ right to free speech disqualifies the government as a legitimate authority.
2. The government of the United States itself has admitted, with certainty, that it is illegitimate and has no authority in its own jurisdictions.
“What? When did they say that?” A citizen might ask in a defiant tone, confused because government workers and their orbiters are certainly reaping monetary benefits that seem as if they attach to legitimacy. After all, something like seven of the ten richest counties in the nation are populated by government payees and their friends and lobbyists in Northern Virginia. “They must become that rich in exchange for performing the difficult task of fairly governing a large, sprawling land mass with more than three hundred million residents. Right?”
But the reality, the sad reality, is that government largess only proves that the government is essentially a kleptocracy, the money that flows to these people does not convey actual legitimacy even if the appearance exists. The government, by its own actions, has admitted its inadequacy and illegitimacy.
Let me explain.
The government of the United States has been told, time and time again by its sub-governments (states, cities and counties) that it is not a legitimate, authoritative government, and it has agreed with this assessment. The following states have openly declared — declared outright — that the government has no authority to enforce certain of its laws in their states: California, Colorado, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Oregon and Vermont. Within the once-great (or at least livable) state of California, the following cities and counties have declared that the federal government of the United States of America is not authoritative with respect to certain of its laws: Alameda County, Berkeley, Contra Costa County, Los Angeles County, Los Angeles, Monterey County, Napa County, Oakland, Riverside County, Sacramento County, San Bernardino County, San Diego County, San Francisco, San Francisco County, San Mateo County, Santa Ana, Santa Clara County, Santa Cruz County, Sonoma County, Watsonville. In Colorado, the following cities and counties have done the same: Arapahoe County, Aurora, Boulder County, Denver, Denver County, Garfield County, Grand County, Jefferson County, Larimer County, Mesa County, Pitkin County, Pueblo County, Routt County, San Miguel County, Weld County. I could list the cities and counties in Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, Nevada, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Vermont and Washington who have also declared the federal government illegitimate and lacking in authority to enforce its laws — but in deference to brevity I will simply say that these lawless jurisdictions, similar to the ones listed above in California, are numerous.
These states, cities and counties have declared, via a galling euphemism, that certain federal laws do not apply to certain people in the United States. Selective enforcement of law disqualifies legitimacy from any government. By taking no measures — over the course of years — to dispute or dispel this declaration of illegitimacy, the federal government has acknowledged and confirmed it.
A legitimate government, when faced with such a declaration in its own sub-jurisdictions, might face the unpleasant necessity of having to assert its authority by force, by sanction, or by any other reasonably available means, but it is required to do so with utter determination and no matter the side-effects. A true claim to legitimacy requires this.
This government has instead, through its limp compliance with the declaration of illegitimacy, confirmed agreement with the states, cities and counties which make the declaration. Once this admission is made, and after a lapse of time, it can be fairly argued that the conclusion is irreversible and absolute: a government that agrees that the states, counties and cities can, in practice, disregard federal laws at their whim becomes impotent — and illegitimate — and has no authority on any matter.
A government cannot allow itself to be declared irrelevant in this manner and still claim authority. A government that agrees it is irrelevant and non-authoritative is illegitimate.
3. A tyrannical government with no respect for its citizens’ natural right to liberty is illegitimate.
The government of the United States has, as a reaction to its own incredible willful incompetence and disregard for its citizens’ lives, deployed a surveillance system aimed at the same citizens it failed to protect from foreign attackers. The surveillance system is so vast, so overbearing and so intrusive that it has permanently shifted the government into the realm of tyranny. It has done so by trampling upon the citizenry’s natural right to liberty. In the hands of an American Mao or an American Stalin, the same surveillance system could easily be weaponized against American citizens for a political grading system or even grid-based automated violence carried out by drone, robot, or secret police. If the late-stage Empire is faced with a murderous dictator in the future, we need less problems to address at that time, not more.
Let me explain further.
On September 11, 2001, an attack was carried out in the United States by foreign adversaries allowed into the United States by the government due to presumed disorganization and/or incompetence. Many decent Americans lost their lives and/or loved ones as a result of this failure by the government. Remarkably, the 9/11 attack was subsequently used to justify laws and government departments performing large-scale tech surveillance — not on foreign adversaries but on American citizens themselves. The surveillance was and is used to monitor fair-minded, decent citizens of this country — who have nothing in common with the foreign attackers. The aggressors in the attack became the pretext to victimize the actual victims of the 9/11 attack further, and on an even larger scale.
Currently, the United States of America monitors communications and surveils its citizens without probable cause. However, it is necessary to go one level up from any Constitutional analysis, which has not been able to deter the deployment of the surveillance over the last eighteen years. The surveillance and monitoring system is a bright-line violation of the citizens’ natural right to liberty. The fact that the government excuses and justifies this violation based on a reaction to their own failure (allowing foreign attacks on the country) makes its existence even more galling, but that circumstance is merely icing on the cake. Whatever the pre-text, a government that infringes on citizens’ natural right to liberty — cynically and gratuitously or otherwise — is a tyranny and therefore not legitimate.
- A government that tramples on the natural right to free speech is illegitimate, even if it obfuscates the issue by outsourcing the act of censorship itself to its partners, the mega-corporations;
- A government that openly admits that it is non-authoritative in its own territory is illegitimate; and
- A government that infringes on its citizens’ natural right to liberty is illegitimate.
What now, America?