From: Chuck Thompson , a True Believer, inquired:

What in the devil are you trying to say? Maybe I'm one of those stupid citizen units. I just don't get it - I'd like to, but I don't. How about rephrasing your comments so that us average citizen units can understand your wisdom. ...........................................................

Well then I'll spell it out for you:

. I actually said that it is "a government" which will posture as sympathetic towards the whiningH^H^H^H^H^Hconcerns of citizens.

. Political candidates very well know that citizens (voters) are looking for someone to save them from what ails them. Therefore many candidates will make the right statements about upholding similar values. They start making sounds like they are going to "do something about it" (about whatever the latest issue is). And their supporters will like these sounds. Reagan made a quote about this sometime, something like: "They may not hear the lyrics, but they hear the music." The voters feel good because they expect that their discomfort will be taken care of. Therefore they vote for the candidate most positive towards their needs. The candidate is elected to the office for which they are running and thereby achieve their goal.

. The more that voters seek the attention of government assistance for their myriad problems, the more that the sphere of government involvement in the details of everyone's daily lives enlarges. This enlargement of the government sphere of involvement, as encouraged by citizens, expands as people find more things to complain about. The more personal control over their problems which they abdicate to the government, the more control it accrues.

. Of course a government does not want to appear to be in totalitarian control. Many citizens do want *someone* to be in control, however. They want a benevolent overseer to be in control. As the scope of benevolent services, as controlled by government, spreads out across the land, many people are happy that someone is in control.

. Some people are so happy about benevolent government control that they want it extended towards things like their own moral preferences. Any time that they see the evidence of anything contrary to their own moral preferences, they want these visible signs of contrariness removed. Moral preferences and how they relate to national circumstances are a tricky subject for governors and legislators. But if it makes the citizens happy and keeps the governors in office, they are willing to oblige in removing these offenses by pursuing the "offenders".

. Reducing the expressions of these offenders helps the governors, because it enhances their position of control. It helps to legitimize their activities and again enlarges their arena, their domain, of command. They can become quite meticulous in determining what may or may not be expressed or said which might be offensive to someone - in particular, to themselves (because it may weaken their image of being benevolent and "in command" of the situation).

. At that point, anyone who can think in the abstract will be able to see that, as expression derives from thought, that what is wrong therefore with all of the "offenders" is their thoughts. That is why TC May called this kind of offense the equivalent of "thought crime". There is a book about "thought crimes" against the State which you may have heard about, though you may not have read.

. Thought and its relationship to the State is a deep and complex philosophical subject. There are many posts in the cpunk archives which can provide you with insights into the anarcho-capitalist libertarian position.

. If you need any more details on "thought criminality", maybe Tim can answer them for you, as he's the one who brought up the subject. I was merely agreeing with him. <g>

.. Blanc