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

I snapped a photo of this sticker on the back of a pickup truck at a stop light. I often wonder if this sort of person realizes what this quaint little sticker really implies.

Regardless of the 26th annual United Nation’s International Peace Day, a suicide bomber detonated a truckload of explosives at the Kirkuk police academy this afternoon in Northern Iraq killing three recruits. You wonder if the bomber was pissed that the police recruits had disrespected Peace Day by not laying down their fire arms. I doubt the bomber had any such intentions, but what exactly is “peace” when police officers and military men must enforce it?

The word “peace” is so overused and abused it has become cliché. The word has lost all potency. We, the privileged of powerful nations, toss it around invoking warm tingly sensations justifying everything we do, as if we were its vanguard. The way we spout the word it seems it should be easy to accomplish if it just wasn’t for all those big bad people out in the world who screw it up, right? But what is peace? Or, at least, what meaning is really intended when we use the word?

Peace is a still pool of water. Peace is a wave at equilibrium. It is an element at rest. It is an element that has been left alone, seeing that when a stimulus is introduced unrest is created. It is therefore hypothesized that peace can also be made to exist by removing the stimuli which brings about unrest. If wind ripples the pool, remove the wind. But when the concept is abstracted to the social level, the meaning becomes difficult to ascertain.

Life itself is a rift in the peace of the universe. The human body is never literally at peace. We hunger and we thirst. We want and we need. Perhaps in death we are brought nearer peace, but our bodies do not rest in peace–they decompose. When the word peace is applied in social terms, it is obviously not to be interpreted literally. So, what is really meant?

In general, it is understood to mean social congruity, whereas social incongruity brings about conflict. But as life has proven to most of us, the desires of one person quite naturally conflict with the desires of others. And naturally, the desires of one nation will also conflict with the desires of another nation. This is inherent. How then is social congruity achieved?

There are two methods by which to attempt social congruity. The first can be achieved through social intimacy, where a tribe of humans are bound to each other emotionally because their fate is shared. This was the way of the Native Americans and primeval people. In this way natural social congruity is achieved. The second method is accomplished by means of power, where a ruling group first subverts the tribe and second imposes order upon the tribeless men. This is the method implemented by the organization we call the nation-state. This is imposed social congruity.

As Peace Day is an initiative of the United Nations, and the United Nations is an organization of nation-states, we can infer that Peace Day refers to the social congruity that is imposed and achieved through power. Despite best intentions, the U.N. is not concerning itself with peace among men. It concerns itself with peace between nations.

A nation itself, however, fails it’s purpose of social congruity outright. The people automotically react against the imposed order of a state. There is nothing that binds the people intimately to the state, therefore, the people do not serve willingly. Some people follow the imposed order only by fear of law and by the threat of law enforcement. Some people become cunning, and find ways to circumvent laws for their own benefit. Some develop a faith in the state and strive to change it though they disagree it. But in all cases the state is socially disintegrated. In all actuality, the state is just a precarious arrangement, that if not carefully put into order and maintained, tends to divide itself back into smaller intimate social units. But as long as the power’s that be exercise their power, the citizens of a state are obliged to act in accordance.

When you think about it, conflict of nations, be it a civil conflict within a nation or a conflict between borders, is likely one of the greatest causes of violence. Frankly, the world would be a lot more peaceful without them. Nonetheless, the U.N. hopes to bring peace by literally uniting nations under international law. And if you know anything about international law, you’re aware that there is really no effective way of enforcing it, unless a powerful nation decides to exercise influence and take measures to see it enforced.

While the U.N. aims at facilitating international cooperation, it still falls prey to inherent problems that arise from a world of independent nations. The U.N. only has the power that its member states grant it. It cannot demand nations to disarm their police force or military. It cannot stop a nation from exercising its power. The U.N.’s political influence is about as effective as the faint words of a mother to a schoolyard of bullies, outcasts and runts. With this dismal picture, what strategy does the U.N. have imposing world peace?

Obviously, “imposed peace” must be imposed by means of power, and if we’re talking world peace, it would have to be one world power. The U.N. itself could never serve as the hegemonic power that would be required to impose peace around the world, but it could potentially facilitate one powerful nation or a group of powerful nations into a position of hegemonic power.

Such a world order would act similar to the federal government of a nation, but it would have no other nations to war against, because it would be the only entity to influence war. It is obvious that a certain level of order may be accomplished by a world power, but do we really want this peace if it requires hegemony?

Even though the U.N. hasn’t thought this far ahead, ultimately, this is how world peace is to be won. One should be reminded, that this type of peace, just as with the nation-state, is imposed, and therefore always tends to disruption. Similar to the nation-state, this world order would have to take police action against it’s own people who break it’s laws and challenge it’s dominance. And we’re back where we started. What is peace where it must be enforced by police officers or military men?

After this analysis, it becomes difficult to use the word ‘peace’ at all to describe what is intended by Peace Day. The word becomes completely inappropriate. In essence, the “peace” which the U.N. intends to promote is the same peace that is won when a hostage submits because he has a gun held to his head. The more fitting term is “order.” Thus, Sept. 21 should be more appropriately called Order Day.

The way I see it, the concept of peace is not at all applicable to humanity. Social interaction inherently involves conflict. The characteristic that marks a good social group is the way in which these conflicts are handled. When these conflicts are handled well, I would call this social harmony, not peace. Peace is lifeless and still. Harmony is a progression of diverse and changing tones, which work themselves together in a complimentary fashion.

So then, if the question is how to accomplish social congruity, we must take a step back to the two methods by which it can be achieved. Since we have found that social congruity imposed by power is detestable, we must choose the route of social intimacy. Only in this way may social harmony be restored.