14 votes

Liberty Movement *LEGITIMIZES* Obama and the Establishment

I have lived in two countries, Brazil and Paraguay, that had recently come out of long dictatorships. During the dictatorships, and this follows for current dictators in the world, the ruling party will allow for opponents to exist because it legitimizes their “democracy.”

If the people believe that they have a choice, that the citizens are the ones that decide who is in power, then the population will accept their government as being legitimate. People will be willing to follow the rules and regulations created by the legitimate government. When the government implements measures to “protect” its citizens from danger from abroad and at home, people believe that it can only be done with good intentions since they were the ones that elected the officials that are creating such systems. When taxes are imposed on people, they are willing to accept it by a “legitimate” government because they have already given authorization with their vote.

But consider the situation where the government isn’t seen as being legitimate: an open dictatorship. Any negative move by the government is seen as a hostile act upon the citizens. In Brazil and Paraguay, as in all dictatorships, the government would arrest people, send them to trial, and either imprison or sentence them to death. In many cases it was a legitimate criminal and thus justifying such punishment. But because it was being done by an illegitimate government, people would resent the government for such acts. When a business or an entire industry was taken over by the government, people damned the government. With time the hatred towards the government grows and eventually the dictatorship is replaced by another, or if “lucky”, a democracy is put in place.

For a dictatorship to last a significant amount of time, the head of state must be seen as a God-like figure. North Korea is an excellent example of this. It is the same reason that the USSR, or communism, wishes to replace religion with the state. If the state is the religion, then the leader is God. This will allow the state to rule with the acceptance of the people. The chance of an uprising is slim, because it would signify people going up against God. However, achieving this status is not an easy task and many dictators have died trying.

In the USA, the best of dictatorship, democracy, free reign over the people, and legitimacy in the eyes of the people, are brought together.

Clearly here the power of the government is equivalent to what is seen in a dictatorship. We have a “kill” list, secret courts, total surveillance, media control, etc., etc. Take away the elections and most people would realize that we are in a dictatorship. But in a sense elections have already been eliminated.

What I saw happen to Ron Paul was a disgrace, not because he lost, but because the abuses that were committed to just make sure he did not win did not cause an outrage by the general population. Yet because of us, the liberty movement, the constitutionalists, the tea party, the libertarians, we give the legitimacy that the establishment requires to keep the population at ease, to keep them thinking that the government is “good willed” and would never harm the people that put them in office.

We fulfill the requirement needed to keep this system in place.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Any solution?

This might be unfair of me, and I probably don't fully understand your argument, but if the existence of the liberty movement is allowing the dictatorship to get away with murder, what could the solution possibly be? Are we supposed to shut up? Or should we not provide a name for the resistance (just ditch the "Liberty" label and just say that we're regular citizens)?

Maybe it's our lingo. I know that when I was voting this past election, I looked for key words and ideas to tip me off that, ah Ha!, I have a Liberty Candidate! I know that other candidates and parties have their own key words and key ideas that their key voters are looking for.

I know that when I share articles, I don't share Rothbard or other classic libertarian authors, with the exception of Ron Paul. I try to use articles from sites that don't come across as strong one party or another, since I have friends on "both" sides of the "aisle." Is this approach helping to legitimate the establishment, or counter it?

It is good to know of a potential problem, so thank you for posting this. Now we just need to find and implement solutions.

"Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice." -- Thomas Paine

Solution? I don't know if

Solution? I don't know if there is one; at least not for the USA. The people of the country have had decades to learn Keynesian economics instead of Free Market economics. Also for years now our personal liberties are being eroded away, even by Democrats. I have a back up plan which means leaving the country, but in the case of most here...I guess the best thing to do is try and educate as many of your friends and family of the principles of freedom.

When a country's social structures collapse due to economic reasons or from a revolution that ousts the current government, the result is usually total loss of freedom. One bad government is replaced with an even worse one (just look at Egypt). But there are the rare occasions when a country emerges with total freedom; Paraguay is the example I not only use but live.

I think Ron Paul was the best shot that freedom had, but the establishment will be more prepared for the next liberty candidate. It will take someone great, someone that can ignite the fire in people so strongly to have another chance at putting the message of freedom out there again. Ron Paul did an awesome job, but it will take some much better than him to accomplish his goals.

Nice, good thoughts

I agree

I agree.

Thanks for the though-provoking essay.

My libertarian friends and I keep looking at each other saying, "Where is the outrage?". It is out in the open now that we live in a Banana Republic but no one cares. Then I thought, wow, why are not the libertarians, who have the best grip on the situation, leading the way with a plan? The State media is all over this window of opportunity following the Snowden leak. Where are we? We are resigned, plan-less, and waiting for quasi-libertarian Rand to save us. We are a disgrace. We are constantly fighting over the stupidest shit meanwhile watching the media win a battle that the courageous Snowden and Greenwald handed to us on a silver platter.

I am sick about it.


If you are active, keep on. If not, and if you are interested, contact me - I (we) can help.

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

not sure I agree...

I think the two party system is the legitimacy you are referring to and the threat of ubiquituous terrorism is the legitimacy for the over-arching police state

I think that for a long time

I think that for a long time the two party system has worked to legitimize the current system. But as the two parties become one, with ever fewer differences between the two, a new opponent needs to exist. Even blatant tyranny such as Venezuela, Bolivia, Cuba, have elections, and in some cases only a tiny opposition, under 5%. So to consider that the Liberty Movement would be the new opposition isn't that far fetched. Especially when you consider that we cater to both sides depending on the issue. Personal freedom is supposed to be the pillar of Democrats while economic freedom that of Republicans. We support both parties, yet neither, thus we are the opposition of both.

I agree with these

I agree with these sentiments, but i also like the thought provoking aspect of the posters post, i dont necessarilly agree with the targets, but i do believe in the "legitimacy" theory

dont follow your train of thought

The presence of resistence is not indicative of legitimacy.
the act of voting, perhaps, but not any movement.

The Liberty Movement and

The Liberty Movement and other are part of the process of voting. We are kept around to so that the establisment can say, "See they only got 1% of the votes, people don't want that."

I'd almost say that the lack of resistance is indicative of legitimacy in the eyes of the people. When there is resistance, it shows that people do not view their government as representative of them. And from the lack of resistance that I see in the USA, I can only assume that people accept their government as being legitimate.

tasmlab's picture

Ah ha - this makes more sense

Hi Brigger,

This shorter post explains your point much better than your first longer one. Maybe you can edit them together (sorry, unsolicited advice from internet stranger)

I'm not sure whether this purpose was our inception or the reason they allow us to exist, but I can certainly see the case that the establishment uses us as a prop like this. One percent is a pretty good laughingstock!

Currently consuming: Morehouse's "Better off free", FDR; Wii U; NEP Football

Not really. The "two party"

Not really. The "two party" system legitimizes it in the eyes of public. Whether the liberty movement exists or not, sadly, does not really have much meaning to most people.

In fact, I would say having the liberty movement is very productive. At the very least its presence helps to expose how the corrupt leadership of the two main parties and their lapdog media work together to ensure a vast range of crony activities continue unchallenged.

Is it enough? No. Is it better than nothing? Yes.

True, I was going to finish

True, I was going to finish with that. I guess we legitimize the Republican party's election process. It is hard for me to say if it is better that we do continue or not and that is why I didn't say if we should or not. I guess maybe looking for other means to change people, to inform people would be better.

All I know is that when I arrive in the USA, I feel like I am in a totalitarian society. That just doesn't seem right.

Michael Nystrom's picture

Excellent essay, and excellent point right here at the end.

All I know is that when I arrive in the USA, I feel like I am in a totalitarian society.

I've done a fair bit of traveling this year, and that hits the nail on the head.

It has been a long slide to this.