Gadflies of the World, Unite!

 by Paul Hein

The “C” Section of the St. Louis newspaper had, on its front page, a large picture of a man in an orange prison jumpsuit. The caption referred to him as a gadfly. The accompanying article told us that he was serving a short term for contempt of court, and in the span of the few years that he had lived in a rural Missouri county, had made hosts of enemies—particularly in high, or relatively high, places. He’d published a couple of free newspapers in which he made unflattering references to people far more powerful than himself, and vented his conspiracy theories. For example, he’d referred to politicians as commies, and cops as the SS.  Lawyers were godless pagans. Incredible! And, believe it or not, he’d written that America was enslaved by a cabal of banks, oil companies, and Freemasons. Obviously, a kook!

It set me thinking about those things that non-kook Americans believe:  mainstream ideas, not far-fetched or untenable. War, for example.

Governments go to war, everyone knows, to protect their citizens from foreign aggressors. It’s a sad business, but has to be done. Except: From what were Americans being protected in World War I? Were American lives at stake? If so, very few. American property?  Well, not that of anyone I’ve ever known of, except that certain powerful American banking interests owned British government bonds, which would have become worthless if England lost her war with Germany. So England, against whom we’d fought two wars, became the good guy, and Germany, against whom we’d never had a grievance, became the lair of the loathsome Hun. And WWII? Did Hitler present a threat? Or Hirohito? Not to me, nor to my friends or acquaintances, but never mind. Off to war went American boys, to die defending---what? Nothing strange about that! Who could question the reasonableness of it?

And what about government itself? Government derives its authority from the consent of the governed. Well, most of them. I, personally, haven’t given my consent. When did you give yours? Over two hundred years ago, presumably, Americans gave their consent, but is that binding on us, two centuries later? And did all Americans consent, even then? And how can government protect my rights? By using force? That’s frightening, because the same force could be used against me if government decided that I was a threat to some else’s rights. Why would I consent to that? I could end up like the poor guy in the orange jumpsuit.

The whole business of authority is puzzling.  Government, all good Americans know, has authority. We must obey it. Government, though, is just what a group of men and women call themselves when they assemble to determine what we shall, or shall not, be allowed to do. How does my neighbor, who has no authority over me whatsoever, gain that authority by joining with a bunch of other people, who then call themselves “government?” If government exists to serve me, why must I obey it? Shouldn’t it be the other way around?

Government is the institution established by the people to protect their rights. Everybody knows that! Then why doesn’t it? I have the right to keep my mouth shut, don’t I? But if I exercise that right regarding my income, I go to jail. I have the right to keep and bear arms, but government places roadblocks in the way of my acquiring and keeping those arms. I have the right to privacy in my papers and documents, in a limited way, but not at all in my automobile, where my rights seem to evaporate.

But, of course, what seems like blatant lawlessness by government isn’t really that at all—the courts have said so. Americans accept the absolute propriety of having a party to a lawsuit, the United States, own the court, write the rules of legal procedure, and employ the judge. It’s called the “American justice system,” and we all recognize how wonderful it is. I have a colleague who, through carelessness, allowed his medical license to lapse. In other words, he forgot to mail his “servants” in Jefferson City the large amount they demand each year for sending him a fresh document to hang on his wall. Such an evil!  My friend found himself in serious trouble. Interestingly, Missouri law contains no definition of the “practice of medicine.” Still, you can be punished for doing it without a license. The published statutes contain a footnote pointing out that, although the law does not define the practice of medicine, Missouri courts have upheld convictions for doing it without the state’s permission, or license, even though they cannot tell you what “it” is. “Practice medicine without our official OK, and we’ll hurt you,” says the government, which cannot, however, tell us what the practice of medicine is! Justice, obviously, is too esoteric to be contemplated by the ordinary person. Leave it to government—and we do! Who disagrees with the admonition not to take the law into your own hands? Only a kook!

Personally, I’d rather trust the person who believes that Freemasons and bankers are trying to enslave us, than the “public servants” that says they will protect me from that person.  If the guy in the jumpsuit is a nut, he’s a nut who’s done me no harm, and has no power to hurt me. The bureaucrats, on the contrary, make my life more difficult with their every utterance, and have the temerity to describe their whims as “the law,” which I must obey, lest they take me before their colleague on the bench. If I try to defend myself, I could end up in jail. They’re the gadflies who needs swatting!

December 19, 2001