The Masters of War

Despite the opposition of most of the world, the united states and united kingdom have subjugated, at least temporarily, the residents of iraq. Of course, as was the case in the american-led war against serbia several years back, most of the claims that were initially used to justify the invasion have proven to be false. There were no smallpox stores. The baathists had no ties to al-Qaeda. The old iraqi government had no capability to attack the united states, britain, or anybody else for that matter except some of its own subjects. It did not buy nuclear materials from niger. There is no evidence of any chemical or biological weapons program conducted by the military. In other words, the case for war was built on lies.

Once they were found out, however, the american and british governments decided that the real reason for the invasion was their desire to liberate iraqi people from an oppressive government. But, just as was done last year in afghanistan, the invaders have replaced one nasty and brutish government with another, after killing thousands of innocent people. The occupiers have declared a group of their puppets as the new government and have stifled any attempts by non-compliant iraqis to form any alternative structures that might challenge their power. They imprison 4400 people they call “security detainees,” who are denied even the limited “rights” granted to official prisoners of war. American soldiers bully, harass, arrest, and kill iraqi civilians who do not obey quickly enough. They invade people’s homes, tie up innocent people, and confiscate their weapons and savings. They shoot at journalists and wedding celebrants. Their kurdish allies expel arabs from their homes in villages around Kirkuk. Religious bigots are free to intimidate women into wearing head coverings and staying off the streets. American agents are rewriting the history books used in iraqi schools to reflect the occupiers’ version of recent history. Corporations whose owners and managers are friends of our rulers are making big money rebuilding a country whose businesses, utilities, and health care services were destroyed by sanctions, constant bombings, and outright war conducted for over a decade by american and british politicians. And then americans wonder why so many residents of iraq seem ungrateful and resistance to the military occupation continues.

After posing as liberators, american troops have shown their true nature. They are conquerors as surely as any other imperial military has ever been. They disarm any locals who do not demonstrate sufficient loyalty to the new regime. They intentionally kill peaceful demonstrators. They “accidentally” kill non-combatants simply going about their lives, and recently slaughtered a group of iraqi police officers trained by americans, shooting up a hospital in the process. They occupy hotels and government palaces and swim in the indoor pools of former rulers, while leaving their new subjects without adequate power, clean water, or medical care.

The “independent” american news media, in general, do their best to portray the occupiers in a positive light, while portraying the opposition as evil religious or “saddamite” zealots. No serious criticism is raised when united states troops use enriched uranium weapons that result in disease and death among non-combatants, slaughter civilians with “misplaced” aerial bombs, or kill motorists who fail to stop when ordered to do so. And no mention is made that the united states military itself possesses vast stores of precisely the “weapons of mass destruction” whose purported possession by the former iraqi government was used to justify the invasion in the first place.

In addition to frank cheerleading for the war, the newspapers, magazines, and TV news anchors choose their language carefully in order to encourage their readers and listeners to look favorably on united states military operations, and harshly at any iraqis who resist or simply do not follow commands. Heroic american soldiers carry out raids.   But iraqi “terrorists” “ambush” occupying troops. American administrators living and working in comfort in buildings confiscated from the former rulers are portrayed as do-gooders, while iraqi civilians who have started a private transportation service in Baghdad with buses the former government bought with money they stole from their subjects, are called “looters.” Iraqis trying to make a quick buck from selling oil on the black market are accused of responsibility for power shortages in Basra, while the destruction of much of iraq’s oil industry and other infrastructure during the continuous american bombing and embargo from the early nineties on is seldom mentioned. Needless to say, the reporters who were “embedded” with the troops are only too happy to listen to whatever they are told by their masters, sometimes reporting complete lies, like the whole fairy tale about Jessica Lynch’s capture and rescue.

While news media coverage has helped convince most americans to support the war and occupation, patriotic supporters of this bloody business should consider what the reaction of the american colonists would have been had some other nation decided to “liberate” them instead of letting them do it themselves. The revolutionaries would not have rolled over and played dead had france defeated the british colonial authorities, instituted a government that they believed best suited the needs of americans, and disarmed the militias. Instead they would have fought the french occupiers, just as so many iraqis are now waging a guerrilla war against the american and british invaders.

In afghanistan, too, where the occupiers have had more time to impose their will, armed resistance to the invaders and their governors of choice continues, as do challenges to the authority of the american-backed government in Kabul. Of course, the united states and afghan governments and their devotees in the news media label resistance fighters terrorists and rival politicians warlords. But none of this alters the fact that people in afghanistan, like those in iraq, do not appreciate being murdered and bullied by americans and their afghan servants any more than they enjoyed the predations of the former tyrants.

Of course the fact that the locals in these two countries continue to demonstrate their contempt for their new masters is unlikely to deter further meddling by united states politicians in the affairs of other countries. Aroused by their recent victories, the american warlords are now making threatening noises directed at north korea, iran, and syria, and ratcheting up the economic war against cuba. It is no wonder the despots in Tehran and Pyongyang, after witnessing what happened in afghanistan and iraq, are interested in acquiring nuclear weapons. It should be obvious to any thinking person that the willingness of the american military to bomb and invade any country it feels it can defeat rather easily serves to promote the proliferation of advanced weapons among countries that rightly perceive themselves to be on the hit list of the american government.

The rulers of the united states have taken advantage of their war to launch an assault on our limited domestic freedoms as well. The government has arrogated to itself the power to monitor what we read, where we travel, and what we say in meetings. Utilizing their increased powers under the patriot act, federal agents have carried out hundreds of buggings and surveillance operations and have visited a number of libraries and mosques to snoop around. They refuse to identify prisoners accused of terrorism and deny them access to lawyers or any other semblance of “due process.” People are secretly detained without charges as “material witnesses. Immigrants are being tricked into registering with government agencies and then deported. A judge recently imprisoned someone for creating an “anarchist” website with links to information on bombs, an area of study the government apparently considers its exclusive domain. While Ashcroft dismisses its critics as hysterics, the (in)justice department is seeking to expand the scope of the patriot act, even as the transportation security administration plans to implement a color-coding scheme for air travelers to advise screeners who can and can’t fly and who should be harassed even more than the run-of the-mill flyer. And this is all somehow supposed to preserve the freedoms which “our” enemies supposedly hate.

The former despots in iraq and afghanistan were brutal murderers, who are mourned by few but their families and cronies. And it will be a welcome event when the people in korea (both north and south), iran, and syria find the wherewithal to send their own nasty rulers packing. But that is a task for the residents of these countries, not foreign invaders who will simply come in and set up new tyrannies, albeit ones friendlier to the conquerors.

The best outcome of all, in the view of this anarchist, would be for people all over the world who are oppressed and robbed by governments and their corporate buddies to throw out their rulers and not simply replace them with new, more liberal or democratic ones. Abolishing government and the principle of force in human relations in the only method of instituting and preserving individual freedom of thought, action, and association. But such an outcome requires a complete change in the way most people view the world. Until individual people everywhere come to believe that they themselves are the best, and only, ones suited to make decisions affecting their lives, interests, and activities, the world will remain mired in wars and infested by governments and rulers-in-waiting.

Alaska, the Welfare State

In 2002, for every $1 paid by residents of alaska to the united states government in the form of taxes, $1.91 in federal funds was sent back to the state, more money per person than anywhere else in the country. Of course, little of this money, $11,540 per capita, was refunded directly to the individuals from whom it was confiscated. Of the $7,400,000,000 in federal expenditures in the state, $3,100,000,000 took the form of grants to state and local governments, and $1,400,000,000 went to the military, while only $1,000,000,000 or so went to social security, veterans benefits and federal pensions. With all this federal money floating around, it is no surprise that, of approximately 300,700 non-farm alaska jobs as of May 2003, 84,000 positions were in one branch or another of government: 16,900 federal (excluding uniformed military); 24,800 state; and 42,300 local (including 3400 “tribal”). Government programs of various kinds play a huge role in the state economy, with non-military “public” sector jobs comprising 27% of the workforce. In Anchorage, the air force is the largest employer, while 50% of employed people in the state’s second largest city, Fairbanks, work for some branch of government (military included).

And what do we get for all this federal largesse? An army that controls huge tracts of land in the city of Anchorage, which it now plans to fence off so it can more safely practice killing people. A deputy attorney-general who has denied DNA testing that might exculpate a prisoner, because she believes “the legal system needs finality.” An Anchorage assembly that has nothing better to do than restrict the ability of panhandlers to take donations from drivers, while firefighters are allowed to tie up traffic at intersections while collecting money from drivers for some officially sanctioned charity. A state development agency that spent $100,000 a month to keep a failing “private” Anchorage seafood business afloat. A public school system in Anchorage run by bureaucrats who believe failure is success, poverty is wealth, and segregation is diversity. Another school system in Fairbanks where a student whose eyes are red from studying can be expelled for refusing a piss test for drugs. Handouts to property developers in Anchorage who pay only 15% of the cost to prepare lots for building, the rest of the funds coming from those who pay property taxes. And a federal forest “service” that spent $34,800,000,000 to generate revenue of $1,200,000,000, subsidizing the profits of wealthy industrialists

Much of the government operations in this state are dedicated to “managing” wildlife and government-owned park lands, and, as in most areas, the bureaucrats do an abysmal job. The federal occupation of the Pribilof Islands, for instance, has resulted in so much environmental damage, that it will cost $100,000,000 to remove the blight caused by various federal agencies which managed the fur seal trade. Regulators presume to grant monopoly rights to favored seafood processors, and prevent fishers from selling their harvest to the buyer of their choice. Biologists “manage” the fisheries by over-producing salmon which are then stripped of their eggs, ground-up, and disposed of in the ocean. Our parks and recreation areas are plagued with uniformed bullies who believe they know better than the rest of us how to care for and enjoy the land and animals around us and torment so-called inholders who wish to continue living on property the government wants to take. “Experts” drug, tag, collar, monitor, harass, and kill whatever animals they choose, “for their own good,” of course, but then presume to regulate everyone else’s encounters with other species. Government oversight of animals plants, and land has led to environmental destruction, waste and abuse of animals, good salaries for interventionist busybodies and paper-pushers, increased profits for favored corporations, and harassment of people who dare to defend their freedom to live and enjoy nature in ways of which our masters disapprove.

Another product of government action, and one unique to alaska are the so-called “native” corporations, which were formed years ago as part of a settlement of land claims by eskimo, indian, and aleut alaskans. While many individual share-holders in these businesses receive regular dividends, they have served primarily to aggrandize the people who run and control these operations, as well as their business associates and partners, many of whom are not alaskan, “native” or otherwise. Just as in any other corporate enterprise, the directors and officers receive inflated salaries, while regular workers are laid off when it pleases the managers. Besides owing their very existence to government decree, these corporations exploit the preferences they are granted by discriminatory federal laws to win lucrative federal contracts, and reward their “private” sector partners with generous portions of the take. Although they purport to enrich and empower people whose lives and livelihoods were wrecked by both government and private theft and abuse, “native“ corporations have been no more beneficial to their customers or caring to their employees than any other government-business partnership.

While oil production, mining, fisheries, and tourism produce much real wealth, and there is a strong service sector in the alaskan economy, without federal money, and the huge military presence in the state, alaska could not exist in the form it does today. An alaska without government would mean no military, no park rangers, no government schools, and no handouts to corporations. It would also mean no permanent fund dividend and no tax-supported road building. People would be really free to live, work, and play as they choose, but they would not be able to send someone else the bill. Individual liberty requires individual responsibility. Until people decide to declare their independence from government and coercion, alaska will continue to be not a haven of freedom, but a welfare state where the limited freedoms we enjoy are not ours for the taking, but are granted to us by people and institutions that can later turn around and restrict or abolish them if they so desire.

NO WAR

It appears that the united states government will soon increase the intensity of the war it has been waging continuously against the people who live in iraq for over ten years. Unable to terrorize iraq’s rulers into unquestioning obedience to the american political, economic, and military establishment, the owner of the world’s largest array of weapons of mass destruction will now use this might to further torment the people and ravage the land of iraq, with the intent of replacing the local tyrants with an occupation government run by american generals. As with any attempt to justify a war of aggression, the threat posed by the iraqi government and military to those in other countries has been wildly exaggerated. Even some in the FBI and CIA have disputed Bush’s claim of iraqi ties to al-qaida. But american politicians have never let the truth get in the way of a good war. Remember the Maine?

It is unquestionable that the government of iraq has robbed, murdered, and brutalized those it rules over, as well as the residents of other countries, especially iran. But none of this domestic and international terrorism bothered those who rule the united states until the iraqi military invaded kuwait in 1990. In fact, the american government considered Saddam Hussein an ally during the many years his military waged war against iran.

While they have fashioned themselves as the world’s head cops for a long time now, it is only in recent years that the united states government and military have been able to fully implement their vision of world dominion. They have announced that those who are not with them in their alleged war against terrorism are against them. Being “with” america means endorsing whatever action its politicians and military leaders engage in, and the united states feels free to do whatever it wishes to torment those who are “against” it. It threatens sanctions against countries whose rulers do not comply, and claims the right to cross international borders in hot pursuit of “terrorists.” Like their pirate forbears, american navy ships feel free to stop and board foreign vessels on the high seas if they suspect them of carrying oil or weapons they have declared contraband, ie, those originating in countries whose rulers the american state is on the outs with. And, always, there is the ongoing threat of military attack to achieve american foreign policy goals.

The united states government calls for regime change in iraq. But, of course the new rulers will not have to be democrats or humanitarians, as we have seen in the case of afghanistan, where prisoners are suffocated to death in containers, women continue to be treated abominably, student protestors are shot in the streets, and foreign TV programs are banned by the government installed by the american military. All that really matters is that the new regime does not step on the toes of the united states in international matters and allows american oil companies to have their way with iraq’s natural resources. What they do to the people they have power over is of little concern to the state department or the pentagon.

The aggressive military posturing of the united states has served to encourage and justify similar behavior on the part of its allies. The australian government threatens “pre-emptive” military strikes, the leaders of the british state practically salivate at the idea of war with iraq, and the russian government justifies its murderous campaign in chechnya as a war against its own islamist terrorists. The chinese rulers label separatists in east turkestan as terrorists and hope to quiet international criticism of their brutal behavior there by saying it is part of the international “war on terror,” while israel continues its slaughter of teenagers and destruction of the homes of relatives of those it considers terrorists. It is the height of hypocrisy that american politicians label the iraqi tyrants as unacceptable threats to world freedom, while they are in bed with the brutes who rule china, pakistan, indonesia, israel, and saudi arabia.

Even when at war, allegedly to protect freedom, the american military and security agencies have managed not to be distracted from their other important work, of course. The coast guard somehow manages to find the time to board and harass cruise ships in alaska and prevent desperate people trying to escape the united states-supported government in haiti from landing on american shores. The DEA has stepped up efforts to prevent ecstasy from getting into the country. The INS still considers it important to harass and deport people who have come from as far away as morocco to Dutch Harbor in order to try and make a living by working in the seafood processing plants there. And the army has not let its desire to increase the number of soldiers fluent in arabic keep it from expelling a number of such interpreters who enjoy homosexual sex. So it should come as no surprise that those with whom the military forms alliances have no respect for individual liberty, either.

While our limited internal american freedoms have been under attack by the government since September 2001, things will probably get worse in the near future. In addition to causing the death of large numbers of iraqi non-combatants, this “new” war will serve as a pretext for the accelerated growth of the domestic police state, where, already, immigrants from some countries are presumed to be terrorists until proven otherwise, and long-time residents with no criminal history are jailed and deported; prisoners are held without charge or legal representation and otherwise denied due process; legal residents traveling even within states are subjected to inane, insulting, and demeaning “security” procedures which do nothing to increase flight safety; people are encouraged to inform on others based on snippets of conversation overheard at a restaurant or on a plane; armed air marshals are allowed to terrorize airplane passengers; local school systems are required to turn their students’ names over to the military to facilitate recruitment; and domestic spy agencies may readily snoop into people’s mail, listen in on phone conversations, and obtain library and bookstore records simply by claiming a possible terrorist connection. Politicians have also proposed requiring americans travelling abroad to inform the government of their comings and goings, and some are now advocating reinstitution of the military draft.

As always, most of the members of the party in “opposition,” after mouthing a few platitudes, will fall in line to “support the troops” as soon as the massacre starts. War is a bipartisan policy, as evidenced by the relentless bombing of iraq, the murderous assault on people in serbia, and the occasional bomb tossed at sudan or afghanistan witnessed under the previous administration.Beside the increase in military spending that will come at the expense of other government programs which arguably benefit some regular people, the number of civilian federal employees, including those involved in airport “security,” is increasing as well. Government, as always, continues to grow, funded by the money the state extorts from working people in taxes and fees. But, corporate america also continues to benefit from the sweat of working people as the government, blaming the economic difficulties of the american airlines on the attacks in September 2001, has given large amounts of money taken from working people to the airlines so that their stockholders, managers, and consultants can continue to live their extravagant lives while regular workers are laid off or see their pay cut. In addition, the government has agreed to use tax dollars to pay off claims against private insurers that can be blamed on terrorism. And one can be sure that as soon as the dust settles in “liberated” iraq, united states corporations will move right in and extract massive amounts of profit by “helping” the iraqis to extract, refine, and sell the oil and natural gas found in their country. War is the health, not only of the state, but also of corporate capitalist enterprises.

The prompt formation of an anti-war movement here and abroad has brought some hope to the scene. Opponents of american military adventurism in iraq range from some european governments and politicians, the catholic church hierarchy, and former cold warrior and author John le Carré to average people who have gathered on the streets of cities throughout the united states and the world, including Anchorage, to voice their opposition to the government’s plan to slaughter people in iraq. The growing non-compliance of individuals and institutions with the government’s attempt to whip up pro-war hysteria by conducting widespread inoculations against a non-existent smallpox threat has also demonstrated that not everyone has been taken in by the lies and distortions of the state and the news media that, largely, serve it. But the only way that this war will be avoided is if even more regular people begin to question authority, look critically at what they are being told, and stand up and say no.

Anarcho-Libertarianism and the Security Forces

Few things are more certain to elicit righteous anger from anarcho-libertarians than mention of State security forces: overt and covert police, armed forces, and intelligence agencies. For sure, even when they are those possessed by the liberal democracies and not merely the tools of some outright dictator or particularly vile political or religious creed, there are often very good reasons for this. For example, their enforcement of laws incompatible with individual liberty; their role in suppressing ‘extremist’ ideologies such as anarcho-libertarianism that threaten the status quo; their overly enthusiastic support of many of the world’s despots in the name of ‘national interest;’ and of course their all-to-frequent engagement in abuses of power and outright criminality that even the liberal democracies deplore in principle.

Instead, the real reason for anarcho-libertarians’ hostility to the security forces is not so much what they do, but rather what they are: amongst the most important creatures of ‘the State,’ a concept that anarcho-libertarians simply regard as a fictitious warrant for certain individuals to acquire and exercise aggressively coercive power over others.      But this is to miss what ought to be the real reason behind anarcho-libertarians’ hostility towards the security forces, and it is a trap into which many can and do fall and end up looking like fools. For if one is to take this empirical approach and enumerate all the bad things that State security forces actually do, then honesty requires one to admit that—again at least in the liberal democracies—they also do a lot of desirable things as well, a concept that many anarcho-libertarians find quite heretical. For example, they can detect and apprehend— perhaps even fend off beforehand—those who commit crimes that would be considered wrongs in the most anarchistic of societies such as physical assaults or the theft of personal property; they can deter the armies of a mad despot who has a cowed people and the resources of a country upon which to call; and yes it needs to be admitted that they can suppress terrorist-inclined political and religious movements of a collectivist nature compared to which liberal democracy seems like paradise on earth.

The problem comes when, having rejected the notion of the State and thus regarding as inherently illegitimate any coercive power that an individual or organization exercises in the name of the State, anarcho-libertarians sometimes are perceived to—and sometimes actually do—reject reflexively everything that the so-called State and its agencies do. Anarcho-libertarians also oppose compulsory schooling and ‘public-sector’ healthcare, both of which are funded out of coercively expropriated taxation and which place severe limits on individual choice by, for example, many forms of more-or-less mandatory occupational licensing. Yet we emphatically do not oppose either education or healthcare. Indeed, we say that a freer life will enrich these very things by allowing greater experiment and innovation outside of the straightjacket imposed by the State. What we do say, however, is that no one should be forced to ‘participate’ in these services, whether as a funder or a consumer. So too with the security forces. It is not security as such that anarcho-libertarians reject, but the illegitimately coercive nature of State security.

Another aspect of this is the crypto-world-revolutionaryism and (in its pejorative sense) utopianism that still afflicts many anarcho-libertarians. To put it simply: that anarcho-libertarianism ‘will come about’ (a) very rapidly via some mass uprising, (b) more-or-less simultaneously throughout the world, and furthermore that (c) all of the flaws of mankind will disappear once liberated from the corruption of Statism.

Sensible anarchists and libertarians have long eschewed revolution as a realistic mechanism for advancing their cause. Firstly, at any give stage, there is only so far that even the most ‘liberal State—or rather the individuals who benefit from promoting the fiction—can be pushed, and the asymmetry of power in the even semi-advanced nations—not least from the very security forces under discussion here, of course—is these days such to ensure the revolution’s defeat. Second, that history shows—with the partial exceptions of the three English revolutions in the 1640s, the 1680s, and in the American colonies in the 1770s—that the winning side in revolutions tend to espouse even more despotic beliefs than the various regimes that they overthrew and that furthermore they tend to be led by men with a personal predilection for violence. What this inescapably leads to—except for those who wish and are able to live as self-sufficient hermits away from the world—is the belief in some form of generally peaceful gradualism. This means that at any given moment some aspects of the State might be more sensibly—from both a tactical and ethical point of view—attacked by word and (non-violent) deed than others.

If this is true within our existing countries, then so too is it true amongst the many different countries in the world today. Even if an anarcho-libertarian society was established in a country—or a sufficiently large portion of it so that by that stage the remaining Statist-inclined had accepted defeat in at least that region—there would still most likely remain other Statist countries, often controlled by men and ideologies of astonishing aggressiveness and cruelty. In short, the newly-founded anarcho-libertarian society, having achieved success against domestic Statists, must either now defend itself against often malignant and militarily well-equipped foreign Statists or die soon after its birth. This can only be done—assuming that it is not also a wholly pacifist society—by the retention of troops and hardware in sufficient numbers, training, and modernity to see off the threat. Anarchism is not ‘disorder.’ but voluntary and spontaneous order formed from the one unifying purpose of defending mutual individual liberty.

The point is that anarcho-libertarians need to be careful that they do not in fact, nor even in appearance, ‘throw the baby out with the bathwater.’  They need to demonstrate that they take security seriously, both in showing that they are not naive about the realities of human nature or international politics, that even in the most anarcho-libertarian society there will be remain a need for security forces to counter both domestic (‘criminal’) and foreign (‘military’) threats, and also that there are in reality only a certain number of effective ways that this can be arranged.

Finally, anarcho-libertarians, in common with most other reasonable observers of the world as it actually is, fully recognize that one does not have to be a Marxist to acknowledge that social systems can have a profound impact on the attitudes, beliefs, behavior, and social psychology of people. This is why, for example, even within the parameters relating to the various political settlements that we see in the world today, corruption tends to be positively associated with (relative) political authoritarianism: despotism breeds distrust and mendacity. Nevertheless, it is credulous in the extreme to think that criminality—the tendency of some individuals to choose to act as invasive human parasites—will wholly disappear in an anarcho-libertarian society. Therefore, some form of security and police—by whatever name they are known—will still be needed.

The point is that anarcho-libertarians need to be careful that they do not in fact, nor even in appearance, ‘throw the baby out with the bathwater.’ They need to demonstrate that they take security seriously, both in showing that they are not naive about the realities of human nature or international politics, that even in the most anarcho-libertarian society there will be remain a need for security forces to counter both domestic (‘criminal’) and foreign (‘military’) threats, and also that there are in reality only a certain number of effective ways that this can be arranged.

Finally and vitally for the promotion of the cause of liberty, anarcho-libertarians need steadfastly to maintain that effective security most assuredly can be arranged in a voluntaristic way absent of the aggressive and coercive ‘State.’ This needs to be done in a threefold manner: by arguing the theoretical case; by noting whatever examples of voluntaristic security—and, indeed, other ‘emergency’ services—already exist and have survived formal prohibition and informal ‘crowding out’ by the State; and where it might be possible, setting up parallel security agencies that are run in accordance with anarcho-libertarian principles.

Who can it be now?

So we’re all like, “Hey, let weapons inspectors back in!” and the Iraqis are all like, “Dude, you pulled out, inspectus interruptus was your idea from the last time you bombed, and you’re like spying on us anyway!” and we’re all like “Shyeah, as if, let us in or we bomb you!” and they’re all like “This is sooo like just a pretext, we say yes and you’ll find something else!” and we’re like “No, dude, we swear, no pretext and we’re serious and we have lots of bombs!” and they’re all like “Let me talk to Kofi Annan, OK?” and Kofi’s all like “Dude, they mean business and they have bombs fer sher, we’ve seen ‘em!” and they’re all like “Jeez, OK already, your inspectors that you pulled out anyway can come in again” and now we’re all like “Psyche, dude!  Too late! Not good enough!  Give us a minute to think of more demands before we bomb you anyway!”  So like, what I want to know is, isn’t that the very definition of pretext?

The State of the State in Alaska

Alaska is tightly wrapped in the tentacles of government, authoritarianism, and intolerance. The state is dependent on huge quantities of federal money, corporate welfare is the order of the day, police agencies of various sorts acquire more and more power, and many who live here not only accept the situation but strive to increase the government’s power to interfere in the lives of peaceful residents. While many government entities meddle in the business of alaskans, by far the biggest player is the united states government. In 2001 alone, the feds spent $6,000,000,000 here, $1,500,000,000 of which was a subsidy to the state government.

Alaska’s dependence on government doesn’t end with the armed forces, though. Non-military united states government agencies here employ 17,139 people, the state of alaska has 16,066 people on its payroll, and the University of Alaska, the Anchorage school district, municipality of Anchorage and the Fairbanks north star school district together employ another 16,843. These government agencies, all funded entirely with money extorted from working people, comprise seven of the top ten employers in alaska, with a total of 71,240 workers between them. The federal government alone accounts for around 10% of all jobs here.Another $1,000,000,000 or so goes to the various military forces based in the state, making them a major force in the economy As the Anchorage and Fairbanks chambers of commerce boasted in a May 2002 brochure, Advantage to Alaskans, there are 17,497 active military and 3695 national guard personnel in the state, as well as 36,605 family members of military personnel. Retirees and their families account for another 44,620 people. That means that 102,417 people, or 16% of the state’s population are at least partially on the payroll of the military. The department of “defense” is the largest employer in alaska with 21,192 employees.

As is the case elsewhere, the politicians who run alaska, on both federal and state levels, are always looking for more power, and have used the supposed “war on terror” to expand their empires. The military plans to place 16 missiles at Fort Greeley and alaska now has its very own office of homeland security. In addition, a new force of “sea marshals” has taken to harassing shipping along the coast, having boarded over 70 vessels, from cruise ships full of tourists to oil tankers, in their first year of operation. And, naturally, alaskans are forced to put up with the same harassment by federal inspectors every other united states resident now faces when travelling by air. Already over $53,000,000 has been spent on “upgrading” the state’s “security” capabilities.

These new measures come on top of the pre-existing policing that people have become all too used to. Here are some examples from the last six months: Anchorage police attacked a 13 year old in September, and beat up and gassed a large number of other young people after a dance just this month. A state trooper notorious for using violence against anyone who does not immediately follow his every order killed a disabled driver on the Sterling highway in January. Police will now be stationed in Anchorage high schools and the superintendent boasts about a 23% increase in suspensions of students, many for non-violent transgressions including “willful disobedience” to their keepers. The state office of public advocacy has withheld the funds of a client the management of whose money they were charged with. An innocent man was arrested in Anchorage and had his name trumpeted all over the media before DNA testing cleared him of charges of rape. People are arrested for bringing alcohol into villages where the guardians of public morality have declared it unlawful, cops are now using a drug-sniffing dog to keep “dangerous” marijuana out of Fort Yukon, a Fairbanks judge recently forced a person convicted of no crime into mandatory “treatment” because he drinks, and Anchorage police have demonstrated their concern for the public health by raiding a local head shop. Anchorage drivers can now be fined if their insurance papers are not produced at the command of a cop, even if they have adequate insurance coverage. But perhaps most absurd, the state highway department has banned the roadside memorials some people place at accident scenes to remember their loved ones, in the interests of public safety, of course. And if one seeks proof that the state applies its myriad of laws, rules, and regulations fairly, one need only consider the fact that 37% of the people in prison are eskimo, aleut or american indian men, while this is true of only 8% of the state’s general population.

Many, perhaps most, alaskans support or are oblivious to such abuses, at least until they are directly affected. In fact, regular people are often advocates for increased state oversight of others, like the busybodies in Fairbanks who advocate that even more drinkers be given involuntary “treatment.” In another case, some Anchorage property owners have become advocates of greater government oversight of residential building since a few Habitat for Humanity houses in Mountain View and an affordable housing development called Strawberry Village have failed to live up to their standards of what makes an attractive home. But they fail to realize that such meddling in other people’s business may come back to bite them in years to come. Wealthy homeowners who have heretofore monopolized exclusive coastal properties in south Anchorage are now upset that the government is planning to exert its “right” of eminent domain to build a coastal trail near or on “their” property, allowing the great unwashed into the neighborhood.

When they are not busy further militarizing the state and pestering the populace, the pols and bureaucrats find time to redistribute the wealth they have taken from productive people and pass it on to their corporate allies and benefactors. The alaska industrial development and export agency specializes in investing state funds in failing businesses and losing millions of dollars. The state continues to invest in new roads to facilitate agricultural schemes despite a history of costly failures. Ketchikan politicians poured $17,000,000 into a paper plant whose owners and investors took the cash and ran. The state has prevailed on the united states department of agriculture to buy $71,000,000 worth of “surplus” salmon over the last seven years and asked them to buy $30,000,000 more last November. Meanwhile, the state outright owns a slaughterhouse run with prison labor in order to subsidize the livestock industry, which then sells much of the meat to the prison system.

The corporations created and funded by the alaska native claims settlement act regularly line up at the government trough, as well. Chenega Corporation has a $300,000,000 contract with the feds and Chugach Alaska, which went bankrupt from bad investments in 2000, will make $1,000,000,000 or so from a “defense” contract. Not to be left out, the alaska travel industry association has asked the state legislature for $14,000,000 to market tourism, while Alaska Airlines, which already received a payoff from the government after the September 2001 attacks, will receive an annual subsidy of $1,650,000 to provide air service to Adak in the aleutian islands. And businesspeople in Anchorage want the city to increase the hotel tax in order to raise the money to build them a convention center.

While none of this in unique to Alaska, it does fly in the face of the independent image many residents here like to maintain. What it means is that the task of anarchists, who hope to convince others of the merits of a stateless society, will be as difficult to accomplish here as it is elsewhere.

All exclusive land-“rights,” except those small ones required to live and work somewhere, are claimed and practised at the expense of the rights and liberties of other people. Do apply the concept of “spaceship” Earth to this planet and keep in mind that none of us or of our ancestors has produced or planet-formed it. A few years to centuries of exclusive occupation or that one’s ancestors had been the first (as far as we know, our historical records are still very incomplete in this), are morally meaningless for present exclusive territorial claims that do go beyond the right to survive, by one’s own efforts, anywhere on Earth, if one can do so without infringing the clear property rights of others. Exclusive territorial claims by others, even when associated with religious, national, racial   or ideological myths and feelings, habits of thought, customs or predominant theories, do not establish exclusive property rights in such territories and abolish the rights and liberties of others.

On the contrary, they are much more like a declaration of war or a claim to local domination over non-consenting others. How wrong these claims are is indicated by the fact that their supporters are lastly prepared to commit mass murder, with machetes to ABC anti-people devices, wrongly called “weapons,” to uphold their wrongful claims. Territorialism ought to be questioned and criticized wherever, whenever and whosoever it raises its ugly head.

Territorialists have by now “defined” Australians as “foreigners” in England and Englanders, including the Queen, as “foreigners” in Australia. Territorialism is wrong and irrational and leads to wrongful and irrational actions, even mad ones.

A Latter-day Altgeld?

 

Maybe it’s in the water. Another governor has stood up to the unjust judicial system in illinois and has pardoned and released a number of obviously innocent prison inmates. Those who were freed were jailed after false confessions were tortured out of them by police and were not only wrongly imprisoned, but were awaiting execution, as well. In addition to these pardons, George Ryan commuted the sentences of all others on death row in his state, a total of 167 people.

The last time multiple pardons by an illinois governor merited such widespread attention was in 1893, when John Peter Altgeld pardoned the three imprisoned survivors among the eight anarchists convicted of conspiracy to murder cops during the 1886 police riot at Haymarket Square in Chicago. Four of the others were killed by the state in 1887, while one killed himself to avoid hanging by the government he detested.

While many thousands of other innocent people remain behind bars all over the united states, and all but three of those who received sentence commutations last month will likely never be released from prison, Ryan’s actions are to be commended as a rare display of humanity on the part of a politician and a small step towards the abolition of the death penalty. While anarchists oppose not only executions, but the very existence of prisons and the “justice” system of which they are an important part, any time someone is freed from the clutches of the state or a prisoner’s life is spared is cause for celebration.

 

A Latter-day Altgeld?

Maybe it’s in the water.  Another governor has stood up to the unjust judicial system in illinois and has pardoned and released a number of obviously innocent prison inmates.  Those who were freed were jailed after false confessions were tortured out of them by police and were not only wrongly imprisoned, but were awaiting execution, as well.  In addition to these pardons, George Ryan commuted the sentences of all others on death row in his state, a total of 167 people.

The last time multiple pardons by an illinois governor merited such widespread attention was in 1893, when John Peter Altgeld pardoned the three imprisoned survivors among the eight anarchists convicted of conspiracy to murder cops during the 1886 police riot at Haymarket Square in Chicago.  Four of the others were killed by the state in 1887, while one killed himself to avoid hanging by the government he detested.

While many thousands of other innocent people remain behind bars all over the united states, and all but three of those who received sentence commutations last month will likely never be released from prison, Ryan’s actions are to be commended as a rare display of humanity on the part of a politician and a small step towards the abolition of the death penalty.  While anarchists oppose not only executions, but the very existence of prisons and the “justice” system of which they are an important part, any time someone is freed from the clutches of the state or a prisoner’s life is spared is cause for celebration.

Great Land of Government

There is a perception both here in Alaska and elsewhere in the united states and the rest of the world that this state is some sort of last frontier, peopled by independent sorts who prefer to fend for themselves and live in a less encumbered relationship with nature, the land, and each other. The local press refers to the rest of the country as the “Outside,” as though conditions here are somehow uniquely different from those in the lower 48. This impression is largely inaccurate, a romantic myth not unlike others which enable americans in general to see themselves as different from, and better than, people elsewhere in the world. Just as it is mistaken to portray the united states as a land of freedom populated by rugged individualists, Alaska is no model of free and unmediated interaction with the natural world and the people and other creatures within it.

While the eskimo, aleut, and indian societies that existed before the arrival of the russian and other european explorers, traders, and settlers were more egalitarian in many ways than those of the newer arrivals, alaska was never any sort of libertarian paradise. These earlier communities were all more or less authoritarian and riddled with social and work roles based on a person’s sex, and violence between different groups was not uncommon. The first human occupants of alaska may well have done without a state, but they were certainly not lacking in arbitrary, inequitable, and sometimes brutal social relationships.

The later settlers from europe and the united states introduced the institutions of the political state to the “Great Land.” These various governments, with their laws and the weapons to enforce them, protected the newer arrivals in their economic exploitation and abuse of the residents and resources of the area, granted titles to land to those they favored, and arrogated to themselves the power to regulate the affairs of those they claimed to represent. The story of modern alaska is the story of ever-growing, ever more powerful governmental institutions ordering people around and protecting the interests of the political and economic elites.

Alaska takes up around 365,500,000 acres, 235,100,000 of which are owned by the federal government and 90,300,000 by the state. Of the 40,100,000 acres in the “private” sector, 37,400,000 are owned by corporations to whom this land was granted by the federal government in the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act in 1971. Just like all the other corporations in the state which own or lease land or other property through the good graces of various government agencies, these businesses would not exist without government largesse and protection, and serve primarily the interests of those who own them at the expense of those who work for them. All other non-governmental lands taken together make up merely 2,700,000 acres, or just over 7% of the total area of alaska.

Much of this government-owned real estate is considered “public” land, but average people are not really free to use and enjoy it as they wish. One cannot enter a federal building, including the social security offices and the public lands building, without producing identification and passing through a metal detector. People are hemmed in by regulations when they want to camp, hunt, fish, or otherwise utilize the various “wilderness” areas around the state. Representatives of a plethora of government agencies patrol and police these “public” lands, telling people how, when, and where they may go about their business when traveling or staying in these areas. And when they wish to spend their money elsewhere, those who run these parks simply close them to the “public” who are the purported owners. Despite the abysmal record of government “management” of wilderness and wildlife, most recently demonstrated by this year’s devastating fires in the southwest, as well as one costing $3,000,000 that was set by state biologists in alaska, the bureaucrats and politicians persist in monopolizing the ownership and running of vast areas of land here and elsewhere.

Besides possessing most of the land in this state, governments also presume to dictate how we behave even when we are not on “their” property. Like their counterparts elsewhere, government officials, regulatory bodies, and police interfere constantly in the lives and business of us all, regulating our conduct in matters from the most important to the most trivial. Bureaucrats dictate how many fish can be caught in the open ocean and to whom fishers can sell them; whether art galleries can serve wine at openings; who can and can’t cut and style your hair; how and where you can build a home; what drugs, whether therapeutic or recreational, you can consume; and who can provide you with health care. The Division of Family and Youth Services steals people’s children, while police, like cops everywhere, routinely abuse peaceable people and invade their homes in their prosecution of the drug war, and are free to lock people up to coerce them into cooperating with the courts. In addition, people whose buildings are on land owned by the state risk being forced to vacate and burn their property at the whim of bureaucrats. Alaska is hardly a land where people can live and let live.

Unfortunately, this situation does not trouble many individual alaskans, who, like others all over the united states, are more than willing to use the government as their private bully when they want to push other people around or protect their own privileges. Whether it is those who want to prevent others from living in their neighborhood by claiming bogus public health hazards from new construction, busybodies who wish to keep others from purchasing sex or drugs, newly-arrived suburbanites who want to drive out a long-standing rural drug rehab center, or coastal property owners who want to maintain their monopoly over access to the Cook Inlet shoreline, residents of this state are just as likely to call on the government to back them up in disputes with their neighbors as people anywhere.

Naturally, all this intervention, supervision, and policing is paid for precisely by the people who are victimized by the rules, regulations, and laws enacted by various levels of government. While alaska has no income tax, there are local sales taxes and various other “tourist” taxes which state residents end up paying as well. There are also taxes on phone service and utilities such as water, sewer, gas, and electricity, as well as garbage collection. The state also taxes corporations, but these taxes are ultimately a tax on the people who work for these companies and the people who buy their products, since this is where these business’ wealth comes from. And all these taxes are in addition to those levied by the federal government which alaskans, like all other americans, are compelled to pay.

Government is alive and well in alaska, where the state spends more money per capita than any other in the united states, and government is a major, and sometimes the biggest, employer in many communities. While there are a lot of wonderful things about living here, like the mountains, rivers, wildlife, and coastlines, government institutions do their best to ruin the experience. The authorities, from Anchorage, to Juneau, to Washington, all think they know better than us how we should lead our lives and arrange our affairs, and have made it their business to force us to conform to their vision of how the world should operate. Only when enough people come to oppose this state of affairs and refuse to obey and cooperate any longer, will we have any chance of living in a really great land, a land free of government and the social and economic servitude it breeds.

War and Rumors of War

As the united states government gears up to escalate the ongoing war they and the british rulers are waging against the people who live in iraq, the slaughter in afghanistan, which the military hypocritically calls Operation Enduring Freedom, continues apace. While the military authorities deny the true extent of their killing of non-combatants, aided in this endeavor by the compliant american news media, some particularly egregious examples of their murderous actions occasionally manage to show up in the US press. When the american military is caught engaging in the slaughter of civilians, however, such actions are routinely described in the newspapers as errors, accidents where a “bomb goes astray,” even though military officials say they were attacking a “legitimate” target. When bombers attacked a wedding party in the town of Kakarak in July, killing 44 of those attending the celebration, a military spokesperson insisted that american forces had been attacked with anti-aircraft fire from the area, even though no traces of such weaponry could be found. Of course, when peaceful afghans are killed in explosions caused by the equally loathsome forces opposed to the allied invasion, such murders are considered the work of “terrorists.” Quite a double standard.

The government has used the war and the attacks in this country last September as a pretext to further limit the already restricted freedoms of residents of the united states. Federal authorities investigating the September murders arrested around 1200 people and continue to detain at least 147, refusing to even release their names. In June, 131 captives, none of whom were implicated in any terrorist activities, were secretly deported to pakistan after being held for months at INS detention centers. When a judge earlier this month ordered the “justice” department to hand over the names of 751 people detained on immigration charges and another 129 held on criminal charges since September 11, the feds opposed this decision, arguing it would endanger the country. The US has also encouraged other governments to deny their subjects due legal process, as in June, when sudan arrested and deported a “suspect” so that american agents could interrogate him in a third country.Besides committing both random and well-planned acts of murder against regular people in afghanistan, the US government and military routinely detain people using the “war on terror” as a pretext. In May, american forces raided an afghan village and captured 55 people, holding them for at least a week, and punishing them if they talked to each other while imprisoned. The united states-sponsored thugs who make up the current afghan government have incarcerated thousands and keep their prisoners in horrid conditions where many suffer from malnutrition. Prisoners held at Guantanamo by the american military, are kept in cages, hog-tied when they don’t obey their captors, and denied legal counsel. A number of these prisoners apparently were non-combatant charity workers from kuwait, but their attempts to use the american legal system to secure their release have been in vain. The federal government has given its stamp of approval to conditions at Guantanamo by maintaining its courts have no jurisdiction over these prisoners held outside the US, and has thereby given the military permission to treat these captives in whatever way they see fit.

Increases in government surveillance and power have not been limited to the investigation and pursuit of people who have been implicated somehow in violent actions. Visitors to Ellis Island are now subjected to facial recognition camera systems; people from certain countries will be fingerprinted and required to tell the feds about their movements and activities when in the united states; the FBI has been authorized to monitor opposition rallies, internet chat rooms, and church services; one can be arrested for making a joke about bombs at an airport; and FBI agents are checking people’s reading records at public libraries. Some politicians feel even these invasions of our liberties are not enough, like the senator who wants to repeal the posse comitatus act to enable soldiers to arrest american civilians. These authoritarian measures have set a precedent for other governments around the world, who have eagerly used the threat of terrorism to further whittle away at the liberties of their subjects, while avoiding criticism from the supposedly more freedom-loving states of america and europe. The threat of terrorism is also being used to justify international power politics and intimidation, as seen when russia attempts to use the current situation to its advantage by labeling its neighbor georgia, with whom it has some disputes, a nest of terror second only to afghanistan. The lesson the governments of the world are learning—or seeing reinforced—by the US is that one can justify any behavior, no matter how odious, by declaring that it furthers the war against terror.

It is clear that the united states is going to take advantage of the current atmosphere to launch a full-scale attack on and/or invasion of iraq at some point in the future. Justifying this escalation of the ongoing war of terror already being waged on iraqis by claiming that the rulers of that country are developing weapons of mass destruction is the height of hypocrisy. The united states itself already possesses enormous stockpiles of such weapons and has shown itself more than willing to use them, but wishes to deny others the opportunity to have them as well. It has even criticized its sometime ally russia for selling nuclear technology to iran, another country the american politicians have demonized for its refusal to follow their orders. Besides turning up the pressure on its enemies du jour, the US is also attempting to greatly increase the power of its naval forces, which can already board any sea-going vessels in international waters whenever they please, harassing their passengers with impunity, by seeking permission from a number of other countries to police their national waters, as well.

As could be expected, this war-making has increased the budget and size of government, especially the military, and has profited corporations that supply government agencies. The senate has authorized $29,000,000,000 for the aptly named “terror fight” and approved a $355,400,000,000 defense budget, $34,400,000,000 higher than that for last year. The house of representatives has approved even more war money, $383,000,000,000 for 2003. Weapons manufacturers have increased production, in at least one case to the highest level in 15 years, and the coast guard recently awarded a $17,000,000,000 contract to two military suppliers.

While most of the foreign governments the united states dislikes and many of the prisoners it holds are brutish and murderous, this can also be said of many of the governments and politicians with whom it has chosen to align itself. However bad the actions of these “enemy” institutions and people, however, killing peaceable residents of other countries and abusing prisoners can never be justified. The united states has claimed the moral high ground in its military and political actions after the September 11 murders, but has shown itself to be as terroristic and brutal as any of those it is waging its current war against. Ultimately, it is always regular working people, just trying to go about the business of living, whether they live in New York, Kabul, or Baghdad, who end up the victims of terrorist groups, including those that constitute themselves as governments.