posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 02:43 PM
When a government, or an organisation in a nation, usurps the power of the people to decide thier own fate, to have a hand in the construction of the
laws by which they live, the only result is tyranny. When individuals within a state decide that the law as vetted by the representatives of the
people, is not equal to the task before them, the correct response is to re-evaluate the task, not re-write the law without the permission and
oversight of those who are expected to live by them.
Nor is it appropriate, no matter what the reasoning, to excuse such an act by providing a scapegoat. Wether that be international terrorism,
organised criminal enterprise, fears of revolution from within for any reason, under any banner, there can be no justification for such an act.
Why, you might ask, is it so wrong for people who consider themselves to be better informed about the threats which face a nation, to assume such
control over a people, even in the best possible intent? If I wanted to spout cliche, I could say that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
I could say that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. However, there is a larger, far more fundamental problem with the idea of
taking the power from the people.
Governance in the western world is based on permission. It has evolved over centuries (yes, even the governance of the U.S. which had the expirience
of the nationalities which helped build it in its infant days to draw inspiration from) from a time when the mass of people were ruled over by
monarchs, born to the role, to rule by the people, for the people. The reason that these departures have been made, away from super-centralised
executive power, toward distributed responsibility, and distributed power, is that the people who lived under centralised rule, were being oppressed,
and eventually threw the shackles of that rule from about thier shoulders, and the nations which did so flourished in many important ways since that
People were free to make thier own choices about how to live thier lives in a way that they had not been before. That is why moments like the
Industrial Revolution are revered and reviled in such measure as they are. The Industrial Revolution changed the world, made it smaller, made travel
easier, made commerce work harder and faster, thus increasing prosperity for those who were active in its birth. But it also made slaves and victims
of vast swathes of people, and left behind yet more. The reason that this was reviled, was that it returned people to a place in thier heads and
hearts, where they felt like the efforts of the past, to throw off the yoke of oppression, had been usurped by kings made by money, rather than by
Every effort to take the power away from the people, reminds us of the efforts of our ancestors to take for themselves and thier offspring, and thier
children, and thier children's children, the power over thier own lives, to prevent oppression of the many by the few. The sacrifices of lives, the
shedding of blood, the sweat of a billion brows and more throughout time, all aimed toward freedom, personal, and universal. Therefore, to assault for
any reason the power of the people to decide thier fate, to oversee the actions of their governments, is to assault the foundations on which that
Therefore, no matter how well intentioned, no such activity can be valid. No matter the threat percieved, no matter the reasoning, because it is
anathemic to the very construction of a system of government based on voting, on that single ideal of democracy. In fact, nothing could be more likely
to bring such a nation to its knees. Not war, not famine, not flood, nor quake. The perversion of freedom and transparency in government is such a
threat to the way of life in a nation which elects its leaders democratically, that one might as well plant a WMD under each and every town, city,
village and isolated cabin community. The devastation which results will be as severe, although at least the nuclear option would be faster, and