Antiterrorism: Fight a Monster and Become a Worse Monster

5 533
Avatar for Mictorrani
3 years ago

In “Beyond Good and Evil”, Friedrich Nietzsche wrote: "He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby becomes a monster." This is a story about such a case in real life, a case we all face almost on a daily basis.

Relatively long ago I read somewhere that the general public must have patience with the anti-terrorist measures, and understand that their freedoms and privacy have to be sacrificed - at least for a time - to make it possible to win the "war on terror".

Such is the nonsense spread by politicians and media alike!

First; the so-called war on terror cannot be won. It is the wrong remedy, applied on the wrong disease - everything based on the wrong diagnosis. Terrorism can stop, but not as a result of any measure taken so far.

Second; anti-terrorism has come to be a worse problem than terrorism, Your risk of becoming a victim of terrorism is so small as to be infinitesimal - while anti-terrorist activities are a substantial risk to everyone on this planet. In its name people are killed (MUCH more than by terrorism), tortured, imprisoned, getting their assets seized (stolen) or frozen, their movements restricted, or their lives destroyed or complicated by any of umpteen foolish regulations.

No, there is no reason for the general public to be patient at all!

I think everyone will agree if I say that genuine crime is undesirable - and I call a crime genuine if it is a violation of justice, not of will. But preventing or combatting crime may not unduly disturb the lives of innocent people. When it does, the State becomes the major criminal. Anti-terrorist measures have brought this to new heights, but the borderline was passed long ago.

Among the measures the state takes are registration and surveillance of people, financial transactions, communication, and everything else than can possibly be registered and surveyed. Another is the obsession of identifying people.

This does not add anything to your security! Quite the reverse, it exposes you to additional risks. Information about you can be abused, and almost certainly will be at some stage; by the state, commercial interests, genuine criminals, or snooping journalists. Whatever it is, wherever it is, and for whatever purpose it was originally collected - once it is there it remains a potential threat to you, your interests, and sometimes your life.

I would say that there is no legitimate reason why any information about you should be available for anyone (possibly excepting your family) - including the State - unless you voluntarily choose to disclose it. This means information about your person, your finances, your whereabouts, your activities, your communication, even that you exist...

But, would some ask, does not the State, the government, need a population register?

Not necessarily. It is possible to re-structure society, so all involuntary registrations could be abolished, and most things could be done without registration or identification.

Taxation, compulsory military service, and compulsory schools are the original reasons for recording people. The two latter should be instantly abolished. In terms of being "compulsory", they are nothing less than a form of slavery.

In the long term, taxes should be abolished too, as they can hardly be seen as anything other than a roundabout method of committing theft. But as a first step, they can easily be re-structured to become impersonal. That is, never tax people. Tax land, companies, cars, fuel, or apply only value added tax - but do not tax individuals. Then no information about people would have to be registered or disclosed.

Other aspects of society could be changed similarly. Cryptocurrencies and other applications of blockchain technology could be useful for this, if applied in the right way.

Shares, cars, ships, buildings, land... everything can be held by "bearer" - with no reason to register or identifying anyone anywhere. Either documents on ownership can be issued direct to "bearer", or one could use some sort of anonymous accounts, controlled with a username and a password.

Bank accounts can be designed similarly. After all, there is NO reason for a bank to know anything about its customer, only something to ensure that deposited assets are withdrawn by the right person. Everything beyond that has nothing to do with sound banking, but is a part of the spy-function forced on the banks by Big Brother. (Such accounts existed until quite recently in several countries of Europe; the Austrian Sparbuch being the most well known, but far from the only.)

Credit, with its need of credit investigation, can be more or less abolished from the commercial and financial praxis. Substantial loans could be given only against tangible security (collateral).

Some mobile phone numbers are based on the pre-paid principle. Instead of first using it, and pay later (credit, with credit investigation and identification of user needed) - a pre-paid number has to be loaded with funds first, and then you can use it as long as there are sufficient funds. When they are depleted, you cannot call until you have refilled it. This you can do with a code bought anonymously somewhere. The system requires no identification.

A lot of things could be re-arranged to "pre-paid systems" rather than "credit systems."

The point here is that almost everything can be re-arranged in a way where registrations and identifications of individuals can be avoided.

Most people think passports and visas are unavoidable. Nonsense! During some years preceding World War I there were no passport requirements in Europe, and it worked excellently. They serve no practical purpose. Their only real function is to control people.

It is a myth that uncontrolled immigration would otherwise destroy the economy of many countries; and for the prevention of crime they mean absolutely nothing.

In fact, travel documents can be said to be in some sense illegal in all member countries of the United Nations. According to its Universal Declaration of Human Rights, humans have freedom of movement (Article 13), and travel may not be blocked.

(This article is based on material previously published in TMA/Meriondho Leo.)

Copyright © 2005, 2010, 2021 Meleonymica. All Rights Reserved.

Here you find all my writings about privacy & antibigbrotherism, and here about philosophy.

You find all my writings on Read.Cash, sorted by topic, here.

Read also: What You Need to Know about Copyright

10
$ 13.12
$ 12.87 from @TheRandomRewarder
$ 0.08 from @sanctuary.the-one-law
$ 0.05 from @jaksonhium
+ 4
Sponsors of Mictorrani
empty
empty
Avatar for Mictorrani
3 years ago

Comments

This is exactly my own sentiment! Are you Libertarian-leaning? I am, and I think the War on Terrorism should have never been started to begin with! Worse, now the man who claims to be the architect behind the PATRIOT ACT is our POTUS. Ugh.

I also believe that Edward Snowden should be pardoned. What he did by exposing the lie that Americans weren't being watched was heroic, not treasonous.

If you're interested, here's an interesting article about passports. They're designed to keep us in! https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/05/21/the-new-passport-poor/

Here's a quote so you can get the gist of it: "Read as a migration narrative, however, Casablanca reminds us that the identification papers we carry were created not to give us freedom but rather to curtail it. The right to mobility is granted not by the individual but by the state, and access to that right is dictated largely along class lines."

$ 0.00
3 years ago

S me

$ 0.00
3 years ago

Yes, I am Libertarian-leaning, and you are right about passports, they are meant to keep people in. I will read the article. Good quote!

$ 0.00
3 years ago

S me

$ 0.00
3 years ago