After you read my blog, feel free to add your own comments below!

Is Fred Mitchell truly "anti-government"?

It has come to my attention that some are making the claim that I am "anti-government" in order to discredit me or make me look bad. It is such a general slam that, in my opinion, it has little merit. But, nevertheless, I will address the allegation anyway.

Firstly, we must ask ourselves one question: What exactly is meant by "anti-government", and what does it mean for one to be "anti-government"?

Secondly, those making the allegation must then be "pro-government", right? I mean, either they are, or they are hypocrites. Is that a fair conclusion to draw on the part of my adversaries? Or perhaps there is a deeper, more sinister game afoot?

Thirdly, since the "anti-government" slam has been made in an effort to disparage myself, I must also ask the question, even if that label "fits", is it really a "bad thing" to be "anti-government"?

Definition of "anti-government"

Well, let us get started by looking up the definition of "anti-government". On first reflection, looking at the etmology of the word, "anti-" means "against", and so to be "anti-" government is to be "against" government. Well, that much is obvious. But what does "government" mean? Let's reference the Wikipedia definition:

• A government is a body that has the authority to make and the power to enforce laws within a civil, corporate, religious, academic, or other organization or group. In its broadest sense, "to govern" means to administer or supervise, whether over a state, a set group of people, or a collection of assets.
  
• The word government is ultimately derived from the Greek kybernan, which means "to steer" or "to control" and the latin mente which means "mind".
  
• Typically, "the government" refers to the executive function of the state. In many countries (particularly those having parliamentary systems), the government refers to the executive branch of government or a specifically named executive, such as the Blair government (compare to the administration as in the Bush administration in U.S. usage). In countries using the Westminster system, the party in government will also usually control the legislature.
  

Also, there are many forms of government that the references goes into. There are autocracies, oligarchies, and deomcracies. So we could carry this further and ask just what form of government did they mean.

The Reality of Governments

What do governments typically do? They flex power. Do they always flex their power and might in the best interests of the individual? And what happens when governments brings harm and even death to innocent individuals? Are governments responsible for more harm and death to innocent individuals than individuals are? And if that is the case, how can anyone possibly be "pro-government" and care for the life, safety and rights of innocent individuals to not be harmed or killed by governments? And that being the case, what are our duties as individuals when it comes to such government atrocities?

"That government is best which governs least" are the words of Thomas Paine. And should not government be parsimonous in its flexing of power in governming us? And is it not best to govern ourselves anyway? What of freedom? Must we be governed? Why not exercise individual responsibility and enjoy the freedom of self-governance? As an adult, should I not seek to make responsible decisions myself? Must I always be told what to do by a government? And if I am constantly told what to do, what is the point of living? "Give me Liberty or Give Me Death" are the words of Patrick Henry.

Oppressive Governments

So, it comes down to the issue of oppression. I, for one, do not wish to be oppressed. Not by other individuals, not by governments. So, I think it is fair to say that I am "anti-oppression", and as a result, I am against any person or agency that in actual fact engages in activities of oppression.

Am I a bad person for being "anti-oppression"? And what kind of a person would be "pro-oppression", anyway? And, have there ever been any large governments throughout history that have not been oppressive? Is it possible in theory, if not in fact, to have a form of government that is truly not oppressive?

I am for any government that is truly not oppressive. Alas, it would seem that no such beast have ever existed throughout the history of all of mankind, as far as I know. But if someone knows of such an example, please by all means let me know.

But Governments aren't all bad, right?

But some will say that "governments do a lot of good, too!" To that I say, if a parent both abuses her child and buys that child gifts, yes, that parent is "doing good". But don't we want to address the abusive aspect? Or do we turn a blind eye to the whole affair? Does that make you "anti-parent" to want to deal with the abuse? Of course not.

But what if that parent has been written up many, many times as being a "chronic abuser" of that child? What if all other avenues of redress have been exhausted and the child still remains abused? Would that make you "anti-parent" to want to seperate the parent from that child? If the child is truly in danger, despite the "good" the parent also does, surely something needs doing before the child winds up permanetly injured or even dead.

In the exact same vein that you would want to see something meaningful done in that abusive parent scenario, I want to see something done with abusive governments. I am not so much "anti-government" -- however, I wish to see the abuse of government power and the harm governments typically inflict on innocents come to an end. I wish to see more freedom for the indivual, more liberty for us all, more sanity, more rationality, more reasons to live in the light of liberty.

Last Words (almost!)

I have in this essay deliberately held off from mentioning too many specifics regarding which governments are abusive and overbearing and oppressive and does harm to innocents. I consider that all who read this blog have brains and know clearly what goes on in the world, both domestically and internationally. And if not, now is the time to become clueful.

An as far as it concerns those adversaries of mine who wish to disparage me for being "anti-government", I would say if they have any decency at all, any knowedge of history, current events, and the like that they, too must be at least a little "anti-government" themselves. As such, their slander is little more than crass hyprocisy on their part.

For the rest of us, let us find fruitful, peaceful, intelligent ways to end oppression of the individual and abuse of power by all the governments in the world at large. For personal soverignity is the key to turning the tide of oppression and those who would deal it out. I always advocate for kindness and compassion. I always advocate for negotiation. I always advocate for choosing alternatives in which all will benefit rather than leaving power in the hands of the beneficiary few.

Dyed-in-the-wool Skeptic

I am a skeptic on many fronts, and especially on the usual presumed notions that permeates society. Just because a million people believes a thing does not make that thing so. Here is where the application of information, knowledge, and wisdom comes into play. And yes, we all make mistakes. I have definitely made my share. The irony is, of course, that some of those adersaries who now claim I'm "anti-government" would not have received any help from me in the past had I not been at least skeptical of that very same government that was oppressing them at the time.

And skepticism is simply a "show me" attitude. It is one of asking questions and seeking proof and justification, not just believing something blindly. And it will be a dark day indeed when we cease to ask questions.

Add your comment