A funny story behind these pictures: My friend and I were looking for the social security office in town, when we happened across this unmarked building. I was utterly flabbergasted to find Homeland Security in my town. When I stepped out my car to take some pictures, a voice from a truck in the parking lot said, ''Can I help you?'' I responded paying him little attention: ''No, I don't need any help.'' Then he stepped out of the truck, pulled a badge from under his blue, collared shirt and asked me a little more aggressively, ''Can I HELP you?'' I told him how surprised I was to find Homeland Security in my home town, and that I was just curious what they were up to. ''Your not allowed to take pictures of this building,'' he interrupted. ''Why not?'' I asked. ''Because'' he reasoned. Perhaps the situation would have escalated, but my friend in the passenger seat of my vehicle, became worried, and told the man we were just looking for the social security office. On our way back, from the social security office I snapped a photo of the building in spite of the asshole who accosted me.

A problem that threatens national security is one of the most compelling reasons for the United States Government to take affirmative action. But let’s consider what national security for the U.S really entails in a global context.

If you listened to any of the three presidential debates this year, you have heard many areas of political concern listed as potential threats to national security. Among them are the economic crisis, energy independence, health care, entitlement reform, and even education. There are some valid concerns in each of these areas as to the stability of a nation, but national security entails more than that.

National security is about power and it is not only about the power to defend a nation’s borders; it’s about power to influence world affairs. It has less to do with fighting off terrorists, than guaranteeing our privileged place as a powerful nation.

Around the globe there is a power-complex. Each nation understands that power is achieved by economically out-competing other nations. Not only does a powerful nation have the resources to fight off threatening forces, it has the ability to influences its will upon other nations. Hence, there is a fear of falling behind in economic competition, that a country will not only loose power internationally, but will be made more vulnerable to the influence of other more powerful nations.

So fundamentally, national security is not really about security at all, it is about a pursuit of power between nations. When one nation has claimed superiority over others, other nations strive to meet or surpass that superiority. The superior state must then protect and improve its economic status, lest it loose power. And even those countries that have relatively little power, are forced to pursue power in order to protect themselves to some degree.

So the United States government is not going to think twice about a decision to abridge freedoms in the name of ensuring economic power. The state only exists to perpetuate itself. Concerns for rights and freedoms of the people are always secondary. Just consider a few examples in recent history such as the governments purchase of mortgage giants Fanni Mae and Freddie Mac, their partial ownership of banking institutions, or the enactment of the Patriot Act. These are all incredible infringements upon the peoples freedoms, for the sake of national security.

This pursuit of power requires the sacrifice or freedoms. Often, this sacrifice is justified with the intent of garnering more freedoms in the long-term, but over the long-term it is obvious that this pursuit of power among nations becomes a perpetual course with no end in sight. It follows logically, that as the power-struggle between nations continues, more and more freedoms will be abridged in the name of national security. The struggle for power is an unending process, and the freedoms sacrificed along the way are not likely to be returned to the people.

And really just about anything can constitute a threat to national security if it threatens to damage a nations power status. If it simply bares an effect on the economy it can become a national security issue. Free people aren’t inclined to be efficient, and so freedoms by themselves can be considered a national security issue. The Chinese government knows this well, and can thank its success as an economic power to it’s people’s lack of freedoms. And if there are too many homosexuals and not enough offspring to populate the military and the work force, gay rights could potentially become a threat to national security as well–the way it has in powerful nations of the past, and still is in China.

Is it not obvious how the pursuit of power is the enemy to freedom? Is it not obvious that social harmony between peoples cannot be accomplished through means of power?

Considering all this, national security should be more appropriately recognized as the reckless pursuit of power it is. It should be recognized as the violation of respect and trust for our fellow human beings around the world. It should be cited as the sole evil of modern society.

A month or so ago I received a call to action email warning against the governments ever- increasing interference with the “American ideal” of the free market economy. The author warned that the United States government is ever approaching an “anti-thesis to freedom” in the form of communist socialism. The email was specifically criticizing the government’s recent rescue of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, a subject appropriate for the author–an ambitious capitalist who operates a Down Payment Assistant program. He drew an illusion to each act of government interference to the loss of a star on the flag. I made the following reply:

Photo by fauxto_digit

The fist of power so-commonly represented on the hands of monuments to our forefathers.

Dear Sir,

Perhaps, you’ve yet to realize that government does not exist separate from economic systems. It is in the state’s best interest to maximize, or at least stabilize, the economy, in order to secure a position as a world power. The government must interfere with laissez-faire capitalism (as you can see by the recent failure of several high-profile financial institutions) otherwise it collapses in upon itself in due time. A free market economy is volatile on a large scale and can only survive with a government entity to manipulate and regulate it. As markets grow, the government will have to interfere more often, and there is a necessary decrease in freedoms.

But what would you prefer? Would you prefer to live in a powerful nation or a free nation? Do you see what happens to free nations, which are not powerful? Take Tibet for an example, a country whose government is in exile and has been occupied by a powerful country, China. Now, I imagine you would rather lose all of the stars on the American flag, than loose the benefits of being an American and live in Tibet. I on the other hand, would prefer to live in a free nation because this is the only right way to live.

The pursuit of power requires the sacrifice or freedoms. Often, it is justified with the intent to garner more freedoms over the long-term,but over the long-term it is obvious that this pursuit of power among nations becomes a perpetual course with no end in sight. You see, when one nation has claimed superiority over others, other nations strive to meet or surpass that superiority. The superior state must then protect and improve its economic status, lest it loose power. And even those countries that have relatively little power, are forced to pursue power in order to protect themselves to some degree. The struggle for power is an unending process, and the freedoms sacrificed along the way are not likely to be returned to the people.

And the whole bit about communism is so out-dated. I certainly am no communist sympathizer, but if you think that the United States government is going to think twice about a decision to abridge freedoms in the name of ensuring economic power, you’re wrong. The state only exists to perpetuate itself. Concerns for rights and freedoms of the people are always secondary. It’s just that the Communists were more upfront about it.

Sincerely,

Preston Benson

''...and damn the rest!'' as it would be logically concluded.

Today was Patriot Day. It was the seventh memorial of September 11th when thousands of Americans perished in the World Trade Center attacks. It is a day when teacher’s tell their children to where red white and blue. It is a day when the pledge of allegiance is made a specifically important part of the daily events and is, perhaps, followed by a moment of silence.

It is a day designed to unite American citizens, despite our diversity, in a blind celebration of nationalism. Together we celebrate the terrorist acts that the American government has committed with impunity. We celebrate our privilege as a powerful nation and our ability to force our will upon other sovereign nations. We celebrate our ability to force our corrupt paradigm of government upon other nations so we may have power over them. We celebrate our power to force “liberty” and “freedom” along with our valueless culture and our ailing society upon other nations. We celebrate as we dismantle vibrant and independent societies so they are open to be exploited by the global economy.

And all the while we wonder how anyone in the world could hate us. How could anyone hate us? We are the United States of America! Every other nation envies us. Every other nations just wishes to live up to our greatness!