Comment: What if it's not so much to

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: I choose Option #1 (see in situ)

What if it's not so much to

What if it's not so much to condition the sheeple to the use of drones, but more to condition them to the legitimacy of government assassinating US citizens without due process in the name of combating "terrorism"?

My (paranoid?) theory:

Government derives it's power from fear. We all know that most people will surrender much of their liberty to the government for safety from a life threatening enemy, regardless of whether that threat is real or just government propaganda.

Now the vast majority of Americans, including even many on this forum, accept the legitimate existence of government as a protector of the people. But no government is legitimate unless it is entered into voluntarily, so our government is by no means legitimate (at least not for those of us fully committed to NAP).

So now put these two truths together - the government obtains and maintains power from fear of enemies, direct enemies of the people OR enemies of the government (the "legitimate" protector of the people).

Thus "terrorists" can be defined both as those who would brutally murder thousands of innocent civilians in a world trade center attack, BUT ALSO as those who would threaten the government.

And who threatens the government more than those of us who point out the logical inconsistency of it's claim of legitimacy?

Folks, we are a half step away from tyranny.

I must be willing to give up what I am in order to become what I will be. Albert Einstein