Civil Liberties

Bill Clinton's Fertilizer Bomb

|

In a New York Times op-ed piece, Bill Clinton explains the ideological roots of the bomb that destroyed the Alfred P. Murrah Building in Oklahoma City 15 years ago today:

We should never forget what drove the bombers, and how they justified their actions to themselves. They took to the ultimate extreme an idea advocated in the months and years before the bombing by an increasingly vocal minority: the belief that the greatest threat to

American freedom is our government, and that public servants do not protect our freedoms, but abuse them. On that April 19, the second anniversary of the assault of the Branch Davidian compound near Waco, deeply alienated and disconnected Americans decided murder was a blow for liberty.

Americans have more freedom and broader rights than citizens of almost any other nation in the world, including the capacity to criticize their government and their elected officials. But we do not have the right to resort to violence—or the threat of violence—when we don't get our way. Our founders constructed a system of government so that reason could prevail over fear. Oklahoma City proved once again that without the law there is no freedom.

If our government is not the greatest threat to our freedom, what is? Recognizing that reality is not tantamount to believing that all government employees abuse our rights (though many of them do). Nor is it a justification for murder. Our founders constructed a system of government that was strictly limited, based on an understanding of power's corrupting influence. If it is irrational to fear overweening government, and if that fear predictably leads to violence, the Framers were loony rabble-rousers.

Note that Clinton does not have the guts to say outright that people who criticize the government too harshly have blood on their hands. Instead he strongly suggests it, then retreats to the position that criticism is OK, though violence isn't, as if anyone were suggesting otherwise. Still, he wants to draw a line between "criticizing a policy or a politician," which is "part of the lifeblood of democracy," and "demonizing the government that guarantees our freedoms and the public servants who enforce our laws," which encourages mass homicide. But since he offers no examples of either, it's hard to know what sort of speech he considers beyond the pale. For example, if I call Clinton a state-worshiping crybaby who equates opposition with sedition, is that legitimate criticism or demonization?

Last week Michael Moynihan discussed Clinton's condemnation of "hard-core, anti-government radicals."

NEXT: Last Week's Top 5 Hits at Reason.com

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. If our government is not the greatest threat to our freedom, what is?

    You might also ask if the government is not the greatest protector of our freedom, then what is?

    1. Shut the fuck up, Scotch.

    2. Too easy. The people are the protectors of freedom. The government, like all organizations, seeks only to grow and expand its powers and reach.

      But you knew that, didn’t you?

      1. The people are the government.

        1. Now you’re just being an idiot.

          Perhap you’d be happier in a “people’s” republic.

        2. If the people are the government, why are governments so good at killing people? Was Stalinism a form of popular suicide?

          1. John you can tell the difference between an authoritarian system and a democratic one, can’t you?

            1. And you do know that lots of Democratic governments have fallen into authoritarianism thanks to government worshiping toadies? That is the point.

              1. A lot of democratic governments have become totalitarian, often with the help of powerful free market fundies in American who prefer capitalism to democracy. I’m more scared of Republicans turning this country into a banana republic with nukes, because it’s a much more likely scenario, having been mostly achieved already.

                1. Capitalism and democracy aren’t mutually exclusive. I’m scared of Democrats AND Republicans turning this country into a banana republic, period.

                  1. Capitalism and democracy aren’t mutually exclusive.

                    Of course, but in democracies people are free to modify capitalism to suit them. That’s better than just imposing free market fundamentalism on people who don’t want it, don’t you think? At any rate, it tends to produce unintended consequences, such as socialist dictators gaining power in response to the misery that neoliberal economic policies produce.

                    1. Name one country that went from a free market to dictatorship. Every single one started from crony capitalism (your preferred ideology).

                    2. Jordan, unfettered market = crony capitalism.

                    3. If you don’t have regulation you don’t need to bribe anyone in the government(cronies). A government official can not do favors for their business donors because there would be nothing they could do for them. Therefore it can not be crony capitalism. Just saying.

                    4. Tony|4.19.10 @ 1:24PM|#
                      “Jordan, unfettered market = crony capitalism.”

                      Chony, made-up equivalences /= facts.

                    5. When was the market “unfettered”, Tony? The Bush administration didn’t revoke every law and regulation, y’know. In fact, he and they didn’t even come close, despite the protestations of tools like yourself.

                    6. Except that we aren’t living in a democracy; we’re living in a bureaucracy. When was the last time the EPA bureaucrats writing CO2 regs stood for election?

                    7. When was the last time the EPA bureaucrats writing CO2 regs stood for election?

                      Well, their bosses do.

                      When was the last time the board of Exxon stood for popular election before they were given free reign to dump heat trapping gases into our atmosphere?

                    8. Do you drive a car, Tony?

                2. I’m more scared of Republicans turning this country into a banana republic with nukes

                  Funny how most of those banana republics have been led by socialist caudillo’s like Hugo Chavez.

                  When I think Banana Republic, I think of El Presedente dictator promising a chicken in every pot. I don’t think of free market “funadamentalism”.

              2. You lie, yanqui paro!

                1. Paro? I think the correct Spanish rendering of dog is perro.

            2. Tony, until you learn the difference between authoritarianism and libertarianism, you should refrain from posting here.

        3. And you still think that the TARP money is your (the tax payers) No, it was yours (the taxpayers) till Uncle SAM demanded it from you, then it became Theirs.
          Don’t believe me, try another lap around McDonalds and get your money back.

    3. Must we feed the troll?

        1. Just can’t help it. Narcissism, you know.

      1. I’d prefer to force-feed it until it explodes.

    4. Bullshit. When it’s 1am in the morning and someone is trying to break into my house, the greatest protector of my freedom is not the government. It’s me. I don’t wait around for congress to pass laws telling me how to live my life either.

    5. Amuse me. Tell me how the government protects our freedom.

      1. If someone wants to mug you, the police are there to prevent it and the courts are there to rectify it. If a foreign force wants to invade, the armed forces are there to prevent it. It provides basic social services so that people can actually be free to live their lives instead of being beholden to the successes or failures of their grandparents. I could go on.

        1. And the success of their grandparents sprang from what? Thin air?

          1. Who knows. Could be having access to free labor for all you know. But should the wealth or poverty of my forebears be the biggest factor in determining my success in life? Should the genetic lottery be considered the freest possible society?

            1. Yeah, the society in which your success depends on how much wealth you can steal from others who didn’t blame their failures on their grandparents is clearly more free.

              1. You kind of stack the deck by using the term “steal.” I don’t believe wealth redistribution involves stealing. If you don’t like it, you can move to some other country, which will distribute wealth in a different way. Though you’re not likely to find one as favorable to the already wealthy as our own.

                One’s wealth is probably mostly due to luck. To the extent that’s true, the moral argument that you should get to keep your wealth because you worked hard and earned it doesn’t apply.

                1. Just because I can choose who steals from me does not mean it isn’t stealing. When someone takes your money by force, it is stealing, plain and simple.

            2. “Should the genetic lottery be considered the freest possible society?”

              Worked for me!

              1. Me, too!

                1. Damn straight. The bonus is the smug paternalism that comes with it.

                  1. Ted, Al, Jay,

                    Not all wealthy privileged people are sociopaths, as you know, and some are genuine philanthropists or public servants. It’s just that the sociopathic rich have their very own political party.

        2. If someone wants to mug you, the police are there to prevent investigate it

          FTFY

        3. I could go on.

          Please do. More particularly, please elaborate on how Social Security transfer payments factor into being “free to live their lives instead of being beholden to the successes or failures of their grandparents.”

          1. please elaborate on how Social Security transfer payments factor into being “free to live their lives instead of being beholden to the successes or failures of their grandparents.”

            Maybe because it guarantees that you won’t die starving in the street for the crime of being too old to work?

            1. Because we libertarians would totally eat Grandma and not bring her a meal. ::eyeroll:: Tony, for being a liberal, you sure have some piss poor faith in humanity. You’d be much better as a hard-right conservative or a fascist.

              Well, wait. You kind of are. They’re the same, just wear different colors.

              1. Steff,

                I don’t have faith in anything. Faith is belief in the absence of evidence.

                Such as the absence of evidence you have that without social security the lives of the nonworking elderly population would improve.

        4. If someone wants to mug you, the police are there to prevent it and the courts are there to rectify it. If a foreign force wants to invade, the armed forces are there to prevent it. It provides basic social services so that people can actually be free to live their lives instead of being beholden to the successes or failures of their grandparents. I could go on.

          Well lets see, two of the three things you list are the functions that libertarians actually support. The third one is far less than all the bullshit the government actually does.

          In the “I could go on” part you left out, for example, providing cheap insurance to people who want to build on coastal islands and flood plains, monitoring garage sales for contra-band lead-painted children’s books, preventing immigrants from working without government permission, forcing people to buy health insurance, requiring restaurants to print calories on the menus, mandating licences for yoga instructors, and other such “necessary” functions of government.

          1. the functions that libertarians actually support

            Right, so just admit you have policy differences with liberals and most of the rest of the country and stop pretending like the policies we support are stealing while the ones you support are okay.

            1. And I just have a “policy difference” with Stalin, too.

        5. If someone wants to mug you, they will mug you. Once the police are notified, they will send someone to collect information and there will possibly be an investigation. If you’re killed, the possibility of investigation is virtualy certain; for a simple mugging, it’ll probably be at the bottom of a very large pile.

          If a foreign force invades, the average citizen will be the first ones facing attackers until the military shows up.

          At the end of the day, the government is just out of range to help you.
          If you think about it, this is a necessity for a free society. We simply can’t have “the government” (via its agents) on every street corner and maintain our liberty, nor can we afford it.

          Once we accept that the government is unable to prevent most harm to us and will only show up after the fact, we can start limiting the involvement they have in our lives under the guise of protecting us.

          1. +1, you explained it better than I did.

          2. There’s no deterrence effect to having organized law enforcement? Or armed forces, for that matter?

            The fact is you encounter government action from the moment you wake up in the morning to the moment you go to sleep. That is, you’re not poisoning yourself with your toothpaste or breakfast because of quality standards above what the market would produce.

            You want to limit government’s role in your life then you have to be okay with the actual consequences of that, which I don’t think you’ve fully thought through.

            1. Yeah, ’cause if it weren’t for the government, Crest would totally poison its toothpaste products and kill off its customers.

              1. It would make a cost/benefit analysis of customers poisoned vs. quality control. Do you really want to have to inspect everything that goes into your mouth, or is it nice having universal standards for such things?

            2. “The fact is you encounter government action from the moment you wake up in the morning to the moment you go to sleep”

              And I’m gonna ramp it up, bitches. America won’t be what I want it to be until government invades EVERY part of your lives.

              Not my life… yours. I’m special.

              1. You tell ’em, Barry! We laid the groundwork, but dropped the ball on putting the jackboots on every American neck! Git ‘er duuun!

                1. FDR pretty much laid the groundwork. You guys did your best to dismantle it.

        6. The police are NOT there to prevent that (just check on the court rulings; the police have no obligation to individual citizens). That’s just as well, since it doesn’t work that way. When seconds count, the police are minutes away.

          The armed forces? What makes you think that only the government could perform that function?

          1. The armed forces? What makes you think that only the government could perform that function?

            If government isn’t performing those functions then it’s not a government, it’s the overseer of a failed state.

            You think anyone’s freedom would be enhanced by having our national defense outsourced to a private company? Show your work.

            1. I’m not sure how our military meddling in the middle east and around the world, inciting people to hate us and terrorists to kill us, somehow makes us safer.

        7. Besides, the police and the armed forces are too busy taking our rights away to protect them.

        8. Someone needs to look up ‘Warren vs. District of Columbia’. The police have no legal obligation to protect you. Frankly, it makes sense, they can’t be everywhere all the time, unless you want a police state…

        9. When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

          I do agree that the opportunities created by public education are vital to ensuring that capable individuals from modest backgrounds are able to make the most of their lives.

          Education is a public good. Those who avail themselves of it tend to succeed in life. Those who do not tend to fail. It is a wonderful Darwinian mechanism whereby the worthy and the useless self-segregate themselves. The best and brightest from every socioeconomic background become productive members of society while the losers and idiots find their natural niche as bottom feeders.

          I believe in public education so firmly that I would extend it to the university and post-graduate level, provided of course that the admissions standards remained stringent.

          Other “public programs,” and especially those dreamed up by the left, seek to “raise” people out of their own self-create misery. This doesn’t work because you can’t help someone who won’t help themself. You can’t fix broken people. All you can do is hope they don’t breed.

        10. Were the New Orleans police present to prevent the savage beating of a young couple by anarchists? Were the police present to prevent the beating of a black man by SEIU goons at a tea party in 2009? I could go on, too.

    6. I’ll never understand some peoples need to lick the boots of the state.

      Running around going “Yay government!” is the intellectual equivalent of “God Save the King!”

      1. oops, I guess I just incited some violence there. Bad me.

    7. There is no freedom without power.

      Power comes from the barrel of a gun.

      Freedom is secured by the willingness to use that power.

  2. Americans have more freedom and broader rights than citizens of almost any other nation in the world…

    Just “almost”?

    1. Yeah. I would love to ask Bill what countries are more free and why he would want to deny America that freedom.

      1. Ironically, the ones with bigger government and higher taxes…

        1. Like which ones? Certainly not Europe where there is no First Amendment and brutal libel laws.

          1. Well, in Europe they don’t lock up people at the rate they do here plus the government provides a lot more services which means greater freedom as well.

            1. Sucking on the government tit is only freedom like a child has freedom. Yes, children are free from worries and everything is provided for them. But it is hard to call a child “free” in the same way as an adult who cares for himself.

              1. No adult cares for himself.

                1. I take care of myself just fine, Dan.

            2. Well, in Europe they don’t lock up people at the rate they do here

              And you think that’s due to bigger government and higher taxes? Based on what?

            3. They don’t have to “lock” them up. They already are. We are building the wall here. More laws to keep your money here, you now need a federal fishing license to go just 3 miles offshore.

            4. Dan T.|4.19.10 @ 11:49AM|#
              “Well, in Europe they don’t lock up people at the rate they do here…”

              Right.
              They just lock ’em up for saying things.

              1. Workin’ on that for here, Ron.

            5. They have cameras everywhere and they commit sonic warfare on their teenagers. You go ahead and keep that, darling.

      2. As I’ve stated before, the cumulative effect of: war on drugs and the militarization of policing; the overstretch of the criminal law and the abuse of prosecutorial discretion; the bewilderingly complex sets of state, federal and local regulation and taxation; and the advanving nationalization of everything, I think it could well be argued that there are a number of countries that are on the whole more free than the US now (and I mean from a libertarian perspective, not Dan T’s welfarist idea of “freedom). Off the top of my head, Switzerland, Australia and New Zealand would all be on the list. There may be others.

        Of the other Anglosphere countries, Canada would not make the list because of its regulation of speech, and the UK would fall off the list because of the surrender of its liberties to the EU and its growing surveillance state — and both would lose points for their socialist health systems.

        1. I agree with you that there are countries that are more free than the US sadly. But if you look at how and why they are more free than the US, I doubt if Billy Boy would like the answer.

          1. It should also be noted that said freer countries have limited military capability. Should another country choose to disregard their neutral status, I wonder how well they could protect themselves from invaders?

            Also, said countries conscript males for military service and have forced financial participation in their health care systems.

  3. Where are all these hand wringers of the left when the folks on their own side of the ideological divide engage in widespread incidents of violence – like the anti-globalization “protestors” smashing up retail establishments?

    Not a peep is heard out of them about all that.

    And that is ACTUAL violence – not the phony, ginned up, hasn’t-actually-happened kind they keep trying to pin on the Tea Party folks

    1. Like this?

      http://dailycaller.com/2010/04…..motivated/

    2. Or, ya know, promoting a version of history that teaches ignorant third-world hicks that America is an evil oppressive imperialist country that is exploiting them.

      How much anti-American violence can be laid at the feet of Marxists?

      1. Think I’d lay that squarely on the Americans themselves. You make lots of friends by invading, bombing and occupying their lands, just for example. There are many more.

  4. if I call Clinton a state-worshiping crybaby who equates opposition with sedition, is that legitimate criticism or demonization?

    Has Bill Clinton (state-worship parasite that he is) ever had a real job?

    1. Didn’t he do something with real estate?

      1. Congratulations in regaining your definite article!

        If government isn’t a huge threat to liberty, what was all that stuff about that happened here in the 18th century? And that foundational document thingee?

        1. The foundational document that set up a strong central government? Why can’t libertarians tell the difference between government without representation and government itself?

          1. Strong? Compared to what, dude? It was stronger than the weak confederation that preceded it, but strong by today’s standards? Ha!

            1. Well for an 18th century agrarian society with fewer than 5 million people, it was probably about as strong as it needed to be at the time.

              1. And that document hasn’t changed since then.

                1. At least the 2 liberal catch-alls haven’t: the General Welfare and Interstate Commerce clauses. Somewhere along the line they usurped the entire Constitution, though.

                  1. Whether the constitution permits things is a different question than whether those things are good.

                    I like having a central government with the strength and flexibility to provide for the needs of a modern country. You may disagree. But whether it’s constitutional is determined not by some jackoff blogger but by the court system. Big government has had a pretty successful run.

                    If the constitution forbids a lot of what makes a modern society function, then it’s flawed and outdated. Thankfully it’s genius enough to be flexible in dealing with a changing country.

                    1. Tony|4.19.10 @ 1:21PM|#
                      “I like….”

                      Translation from brain-dead:
                      Chony likes it, so it’s good. Principle? Liberty? Coercion?
                      Brain-deads can’t be bothered with concepts other than whether their Mom would do it for them.
                      Much easier to be a life-long juvenile.

              2. …and about as strong as it needs to be today. We don’t need the leviathan we have now.

                1. So what would you cut? Bear in mind that any discussion of policy changes that don’t factor in political sentiment are purely academic exercises.

                  1. I’d tell you, but it would be sedition.

          2. There’s a hell of a difference between “a strong central government” and an overbearing, needlessly-expensive one.

  5. While Bill Clinton may have his personal charms. And as Presidents go he managed not to fuck up nearly as bad in office as he could have. Never forget that he is a horrible, dishonest demagogue. He was in office and he is now.

    1. That pretty much sums it up, John.

  6. It seems McCarthyism is always in vogue.

  7. I look back on the Clinton Presidency as the “good old days”. I would take him in a heartbeat over the jackass we have now (as I would have happily traded GWB for Clinton, in days gone by).

    1. I wouldn’t be so sure. Clinton operated under different circumstances. Had Bush been President in the decade about nothing 90s, you probably would look at him completely different. And I guarantee you that you would look at Clinton differently if he had been President after 9-11.

      When people say they would take Clinton as President, what they really mean is that they would like the world to be like it was in the 1990s, which is different than saying you would take him as President again now.

      1. Very true. Clinton got the benefit of the tech boom and the aftereffects of Reagan, who helped collapsed the USSR and thus allowed Clinton to cut the defense budget.

      2. I wouldn’t want to take the Bill Clinton who presided over the country in ’93/’94. I might consider the pragmatic Bill Clinton who emerged after the Gingrich congress arrived in town. And, no, I wouldn’t want either Bill Clinton in the days following 9-11. Nor this Bill Clinton.

  8. This thing is endlessly amusing; Clinton says we don’t have the right to resort to violence when we don’t get our way, and in the next line talks about how great the founders were. Yeah, that’s right, the founders never used violence against the government when they didn’t like its policies.

    1. When there are no free elections, you might have the right to resort to violence.

      The revolutionaries were reacting against tyrannical government, not government itself or its policies. It was about not having any say in the policies.

      Saying you have the right to resort to violence because you don’t like your government’s policies is saying your a big whiny crybaby who can’t abide democracy when it doesn’t go your way.

      1. “That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”

        1. Has our government abolished elections recently?

          1. Bush v. Gore ring a bell?

        2. As long as we have the ballot box and the soapbox, no need to resort to the cartridge box.

      2. When there are no free elections, you might have the right to resort to violence.

        Ah, so we have live with the tyranny of the majority forever, as long as we’re still allowed to vote. What if the majority wants mandatory abortions for those living below the poverty line? That would save us quite a bit of money, don’t you think? All for the common good.

        1. What system would be better? Tyranny of Jordan, I presume? Benevolent libertarian despotism?

          1. How about a system where the government just doesn’t have the power to make people get abortions because, you know, maybe if they had babies those babies would grow up and engage in commerce which would have interstate effects? And best of all, this power could be denied to the government through a document that, when interpreted according to its plain meaning, would deny the government such arbitrary and overreaching authority, no matter which clods managed to get themselves installed at the reins of power.

            What a novel fucking concept!

            1. The Democratic process and the case law if this country both disagree with that form of government. You’re just using the constitution as a conversation stopper. I can say my beliefs are what the constitution says and then all we have is a difference of opinion of what the constitution says. Since most people disagree with you on that question, maybe you’re wrong and you just have a different policy stance than most other people and you’re mad that it’s not getting imposed on them.

          2. There’s nothing despotic about libertarianism, you twit.

  9. I won’t cut Bush any slack whatsoever. I think Bush would have been a disastrous fuck-up as President no matter *when* he was elected.

    At least Clinton was a pragmatist.

    And I’m not going to smack this tar baby any more. I have better things to do.

  10. Still, he wants to draw a line between “criticizing a policy or a politician,” which is “part of the lifeblood of democracy,” and “demonizing the government that guarantees our freedoms and the public servants who enforce our laws,” which encourages mass homicide. But since he offers no examples of either, it’s hard to know what sort of speech he considers beyond the pale. For example, if I call Clinton a state-worshiping crybaby who equates opposition with sedition, is that legitimate criticism or demonization?

    The answer, of course, is what ever works to his and his party’s political advantage. So in his mind criticizing the government when the “wrong” party is in power is “legitimate” and criticizing Obama isn’t.

  11. The foundational document that set up a strong central government?

    Fail.

    1. Well that’s what it is. It only exists because the weak central government that came before was such a failure. But then I did learn that in public school.

      1. My public school taught me the difference between central and federal systems of government. Yours just sucked.

  12. Jeez the 90s are back. Next thing we know, a young intern will spill the beans on a few blowjobs she gave to the “first black president”

  13. But we do not have the right to resort to violence?or the threat of violence?when we don’t get our way.

    That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

    For someone named after Jefferson….

    1. Even Jefferson didn’t live up to Jefferson’s ideals. He knew that the Louisiana Purchase was probably unconstitutional. Jefferson as president has an interesting legacy in that he laid the groundwork for a strong executive.

  14. I once peed on Bill Clinton’s man boobs (upon request, natch) as he lay beneath me in the Lincoln bedroom.

  15. Oh Please Contemplationist the internist will be a boy..Lest we forget Donal Young & Larry Sinclair..

  16. : the belief that the greatest threat to American freedom is our government, and that public servants do not protect our freedoms, but abuse them.

    I’m still waiting for Clinton to say something true.

  17. Oh, by the way, epic win on the title of the blogpost. Well played, sir, well played.

  18. Democrats, lol! They keep hounding their message, still no one is listening!

    I’m sorry, did you say something, Bill?

  19. … deeply alienated and disconnected Americans decided murder was a blow for liberty.

    Hey there, Billy Boy, speaking of a blow – smoked any of those specially cured cigars of yours lately? Miserable, dishonorable, son of a bitch – why is anything out of your lying mouth even relevant anymore?

  20. Bill Cinton: Peace dividend? Oh, I thought you said ‘piece dive in’.

  21. I don’t think the Tea Party folks or anyone else need to sit still for any lecturing about instigating violence from Billy boy Clinton – the guy who pardoned FALN terrorsits to garner the support of New York Puerto Ricans for his wife’s Senate campaign.

    1. Beside, what is totally forgotten in his discourse, as well as in this blog, is that McVeigh justified his despicable deed by another despicable deed: the incineration of 80+ people at Waco. The responsibility of the government in that monstrosity was reviewed only in what turned out to be a travesty of justice.

      1. Well, you’ve got me there.

  22. Timothy McVeigh’s great crime was that of Anakin Skywalker, or any number of fallen fictional heroes. Give into hate, become the mirror image of what you hate. Hate the feds for murdering people and their children, become a murderer of people and their children.

    However, that doesn’t actually mean that the federal government of the US, as an organization, hasn’t done vastly more evil that McVeigh in its existence. The fact that evil people fight them doesn’t diminish the enormity of their crimes against humanity.

  23. You know who gave your local beat cop those nice bullet proof vest, AR-47s swinging on their hips, shiny black books, training coordinated with the military, and an even shitier attitude towards civilians and less accountability than they had before? [wink] That’s right, you are looking at him.

  24. But since he offers no examples of either, it’s hard to know what sort of speech he considers beyond the pale.

    Let me clear that up for you:

    If you’re criticising a republican, anything you can think of to say is okay.

    If you’re criticising a democrat, in any way, you’ve gone too far and might as well be calling for the murder of innocent women and children.

    Pretty sure that’s what Clinton was getting at.

  25. We should never forget what drove the bombers, and how they justified their actions to themselves.

    I believe that would be the incineration of 80 people, including women and children, at Waco. By your administration. Under an Attorney General whose resignation you neglected to obtain.

    No, we haven’t forgotten.

    1. R C Dean|4.19.10 @ 2:35PM|#
      “….Under an Attorney General whose resignation you neglected to obtain…”

      Oh, but she ‘took responsibility’…

      1. I’m a mover and a shaker.

  26. Where was Bubba in 2003 when there were people openly discussing the active invasion of military bases for the express purpose of interfering with an ongoing war effort?

    http://forums.officer.com/foru…..13969.html

  27. And what was Timmothy Veigh angry about? Could it have been something that happened under Clinton’s watch and direction – WACO?

  28. In 2003, Hillary Clinton screeched “I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you’re not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration.”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJxmpTMGhU0Guess

    1. She only meant that when Republicans have the majority. Everything she said, she would retract had she won.

  29. Americans: Calm down.

    Government isn’t the enemy, government has made life now better than it ever has been at any point in history by every metric. No, it’s not been a completely flawless process, but it’s one that’s ongoing.

    I speak as a resident of that socialist hell-hole known as Europe. “Big government” here has taxed us far more heavily that in the US, it has “forced” upon us universal health care, the state pension and benefits for the poor. For the last 60 years or so much of Europe has been that dreaded thing: A socialist welfare state. The terrifying results: We’re happier, healthier, live longer, have more holiday days, easier access to childcare, better educational outcomes, a higher minimum wage, a lower crime rate, a MUCH lower murder rate, less drug abuse. How we’ve still managed to remain hugely rich is a mystery to me. Probably because you can have a working society without unrestricted capitalism.

    Of course the government is the biggest protector of your freedoms, who else is going to do it? To propose that each individual is responsible for their own protection is nonsense, it’s barbarism. Take it to its logical conclusion and if I’m bigger and stronger than you there’s nothing wrong with me killing you and taking your property, you should have defended yourself better. The whole idea of government is that it ISN’T motivated by profit, and therefore provides things that are generally considered worthwhile, but that don’t make any money. In Europe that tends to mean the standard police, fire, military as well as a social safety net, some form of socialised housing, functionally free or very cheap healthcare etc etc. And yes the police do protect you, no they’re not always there exactly when you need them, but they do catch a lot of criminals and they do deter crime. It’s all well and good to think that you and your gun is all you need but at the end of the day there’s a reason every developed country in the world has ended up with some sort of professional police force.

    Even some of the classical liberals realised that pure liberalism didn’t work (people like Disraeli with his positive and negative freedoms). “Freedom to be born and die in the gutter is no freedom at all”.

    Ok so you don’t like government because it coerces you (all authority is to some extent coercive), and it’s true it does, at times it seems in the USA more so than other places (I’m thinking war on drugs here especially) but it also provides things you use on a daily basis in return for that (everything from police to roads) that the market would never provide to you in a way that was free at the point of access, if at all. Most of the world has accepted that we have to give up some freedoms for society to function.

    And yes you don’t like the government taking your money away as tax, but look on the bright side: You pay a hell of a lot less tax than I do. The facts are once you take into account out of pocket expenses a lot of you will end up paying far more money than me for things like healthcare, child care and transport. Because my healthcare is paid for without shareholders making a profit, and my countrymen believe that I shouldn’t go bankrupt for simply having the misfortune of falling ill. Perhaps it is the veil of ignorance that motivates them, or maybe genuine altruism but the result is the same.

    What galls me is this: You could have many of these things, if not all of them. In fact it’s quite possible you could have it even better than Europeans (well not on the murder thing, seeing as it’s unluckily you’ll ever give up your gun addiction). You could probably do this with only minimal tax increases. Simply shrink the five sided black hole in your budget, because at the moment it’s bigger than every other countries’ put together.

    1. Europeans: We invented everything. You’re welcome.

    2. You have cameras everywhere, you basically commit warfare on smokers, teenagers and everyone else who doesn’t agree with the current trends, unemployment rate is very high, dental care is poor and I think I’d rather take my chances here than there.

      Good for you. But we left because we wanted to dictate our own destinies.

    3. “Of course the government is the biggest protector of your freedoms, who else is going to do it? To propose that each individual is responsible for their own protection is nonsense, it’s barbarism.”

      The alternative to the individual being responsible for their own protection is other’s being responsible. THIS is barbarism. It means that I can take from you whatever I need, because you are responsible for my protection. But, of course, once you eliminate the rights of the individual to control their own life and property, what is there to protect?

      “Take it to its logical conclusion and if I’m bigger and stronger than you there’s nothing wrong with me killing you and taking your property, you should have defended yourself better.”

      How is it not wrong if the KEY VALUE of libertarian anarcho-capitalism is non-aggression. If aggression is by definition illegal, how can you logically conclude that there is “nothing wrong” with aggression? Aggression would be wrong regardless of the ability of the victim to protect himself. The only way aggression can be considered not wrong is if it is made legal, and the raw definition of the state is legalized aggression.

    4. You also have several members of the EU (starting with Greece) about to go bankrupt (and having the nerve to blame it on the “speculators”), less-than-replacement birth rates so you won’t have a Europe in a few hundred years, and truckloads of foreigners who aren’t assimilating (Paris riots, 2005). But you have child-care. Whoop-dee-doo!

      And about that “five-sided black hole” every hippie loves to bash: It only eats up 20% of the federal budget. You can eliminate it completely and (in 2010) you’re still left with a $500 billion deficit.

  30. It’s pretty bad when the writer of this article can’t tell the difference between inciting violence, and criticism. If you disagree with someone, please don’t try to sugar coat what it is you disagree with. I think I’ll call this the moment Reason has jumped the shark. One less thing to follow on twitter.

    1. What the fuck are you talking about? Clinton is the one who continuously insinuates that all criticism of the government is equivalent to inciting violence against it. Also, how is Sullum “sugar-coating” what Clinton is saying? Do you even know what that means?

  31. Wow, my brain hurts. How fucked up does a troll post have to be, when “Butters” is jumping on them for their non-sequitors?

  32. If “we do not have the right to resort to violence ? or the threat of violence ? when we don’t get our way,” how can Government possibly function?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.