ANARCHY, SOCIETY, GOVERNMENT AND TYRANNY

by Kirk Brothers

CLICK HERE to return to Index

INTRODUCTION

     In this article I hope to show that, from the Libertarian
viewpoint, (a) the concepts of ANARCHY, SOCIETY, GOVERNMENT and
TYRANNY comprise, in toto, the four possible states of human
political existence; (b) that society and government are the
"heads" and "tails" of one coin usually called THE SOCIAL
CONTRACT; and (c) that anarchy and tyranny are polar opposites
showing a major breakdown in that unwritten agreement.

THE FOUR STATES OF POLITICAL EXISTENCE

     I first submit that anarchy,society, government and tyranny
are "mileposts" on a continuum of individual freedom/restriction.
     Anarchy in essence is unbridled freedom--no restrictions,
except those imposed by an individual's sense of right and wrong. 
     Tyranny is the polar opposite of anarchy.  It is unbridled
restriction, imposed by unrestricted government.  It occurs when
government degenerates into a mere tool in the hands of a self-
serving bureaucracy.
     Between these equally undesirable extremes lies the coin of
the social contract, the two faces of which--while interrelated
to some degree--are mutually exclusive in their purpose and
method.  It seems valid to view society as the "carrot" in the
contract, while government is the "stick".  Society, in essence,
seeks to MODERATELY restrict freedom by offering REWARDS for
complying with the social contract.  Government is essentially
PUNITIVE--it is the police power of any state which seeks to
uphold the social contract by force--to benefit the government
first and the people second.
     It will be shown that America's politicians have corrupted
our government into barely-concealed tyranny and we must rethink
our options as to what we may do about it.

ANARCHY
     
     Anarchy is often decried as "the law of the jungle", using
that trite expression as a pejorative.  I first submit that a
wiser analogy is to refer to anarchy as "natural law".  It is an
impersonal law, surely--governing most commonly through the
predator/prey relationship.  Under natural law an individual has
no unique or favored status--natural law is inexorable and blind
to all so-called individual rights and virtues.
     Hobbes' classic description of a state of natural law bears
repetition here:
     
     No arts, no letters, no society; and what is worst of all,
     continued fear and danger of violent death...

Hobbes went on to describe the life of man under natural law as:

     ...solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

Hobbes' keen insight so eloquently stated might be illustrated by
a simple hypothetical example.
     Let us say that a rabbit leaves its warren one morning to
look for breakfast.  It comes to a stone wall, where it must
turn either left or right.  It chooses to turn right.  It meets
a fox--also out looking for breakfast--and that is the end of
the rabbit.  Had the rabbit turned left it would not have met
that fox at that time, and its life might have ended later or
differently.  But natural law cares nothing for individuals--it
is simply a matter of eat or be eaten.
     The great agnostic, Robert G. Ingersoll, made the classic
observation that in nature there are no rewards and no punish-
ments--there are only consequences.  It is man alone who tries
to control the behavior of other men by offering rewards for the
"right" behavior, or punishments for failure to comply.  This
system works only if all men have accepted the social contract.
     For example, if man lives in a state of nature--with no
human law to consider--there are no environmental protection laws
to prevent his destroying his natural surroundings.  But natural
law will dictate that the destroyer of his surroundings must bear
the consequences--usually disastrous, or fatal, to the thought-
less human.
     It is obvious to everyone except an anarchist that anarchy
has one grievous, built-in flaw which invalidates the entire
theory of a stateless human existence.  That flaw is the failure
of anarchists to recognize that, while exceptional anarchists
might be considerate of other humans and the natural world, most
people, by nature, are selfish, stupid, and deceptive much of the
time--and some are selfish, stupid and deceptive all of the time.
If such individuals see a chance to get "something for nothing",
most of them will seize the opportunity and damn the long-term
consequences of a moment's selfishness.  They believe they can
"get away with it" and, unfortunately, they often do so.

THE NEXT MILEPOST
      
     But these are obvious generalities.  Let me be specific by
asking a crucial question upon the answer to which thoughtful men
must, I believe, agree.  Here is the question:

     Where does natural law end, and society begin?

Think about it.  You might have a different answer than mine, but
consider this, please.
     I submit that society begins with the concept of private
property.  Here are my reasons.
     In nature, man is a hunter, fisherman, trapper, or gatherer
of wild vegetables and fruits.  He must be nomadic because when
the bounty of nature has been exhausted in one of his crude camp
grounds, he most move on to another location which has not been
depleted by other men.
     There was a thought-provoking and beautifully-filmed program
on Public Television a few years back, on a recently-discovered
primitive tribe living in the Amazon rain forest.  A camera crew
spent some time living with them, videotaping their natural life-
style--perhaps some readers will remember seeing it.
     The tribe consisted of an old man (in his sixties, with the
body of a man in his thirties), his wives and children, who lived
in a crude dwelling, entirely in the nude (the state of man in
nature before either commercial technology sells him clothing, or
prudish religion demands it).  The patriarch hunted monkeys for
their meat, using a blowgun propelling darts the old man had
dipped in curare which he was seen preparing over a camp fire.
     The wives and children performed chores for the good of the
family, especially gathering food (one son helped his father on
the hunt for monkey meat).  When the old man came home with a
monkey he had killed with his poisoned dart, there was rejoicing
and sharing of the food, and mutual grooming of each other's
hair.
     Finally the patriarch decided he had to walk too far on the
hunt for monkeys, so the crude dwelling was burned down and the
tribe moved on to a new home site deep in the jungle.
     Please note that everyone in the social group shared equally
in all benefits.  There was no "private" property, and no sense
of privacy from others.  Yet the group might be seen as having
some structure, based purely upon the natural relationships of
old/young, or parent/child.
     But if one tries to apply such a social structure to those
outside a family group, the structure cannot survive the stress
and strain of competition--for available food, as an example.
     
NATURAL RIGHTS IN SOCIETY

     When man left the precarious existence of the jungle to form
communities with permanent homes--to become animal husbandmen and
farmers rather than hunters and gatherers of wild produce, the
first and perhaps greatest achievement was the establishment of
private property as the basis for some sense of security and
prosperity.  Once a social group took possession of a tract of
land by squatters' rights, and agreed among themselves to share
it fairly--each member of the group being assigned a specific
plot of land as "his domain"--real society had been unwittingly
created by their unwritten contract.
     Let's pause a moment to emphasize a couple of points that
might otherwise go unnoticed.  First, in a state of nature, man
had two fundamental rights: the right of self-determination, and
the right to be left alone.
     These natural rights were embodied by long tradition in the
Common Las of England, and were part of every American's Common
Law heritage.  The right of self-determination means simply that
a man makes his own decisions and assumes full responsibility for
all consequences of his errors.  The right to be left alone means
simply that his right of self-determination is pre-eminent unless
by his actions or negligence he causes injury to some other man.
     These are fundamental Libertarian concepts, which have been
thrown out with the garbage by the creeping socialism of sixty
years of dry rot in our government.  By what Madison called the
"gradual and silent encroachments of those in power" our Federal
(and State) political bureaucrats have undermined the ancient
rights that we Libertarians claim--most vehemently--must be
restored to the people.  Individuals, by their consent, determine
the rights of the social group--not the other way around, in
which the social group DICTATES to individuals, despite their
innate and unalienable rights.
     In short, society is a complex pattern of private property,
voluntary associations and consensual contracts--the central and
binding concept being the right of each person to "own" property
exclusively.  Private property is a formal recognition of man's
territorial instinct.  Anarchy in its purest sense would not
recognize private ownership of any part of nature--although
pseudo-anarchists and socialists do so, to some extent.
     We have already reviewed the distinction between society and
government--that government is essentially punitive, as a means
of maintaining law and order--without which society would lapse
into anarchy.  It has been frequently seen that, in time of war
when normal law and order collapse, looting and pillaging will
invariably begin.  It happened in Atlanta before the collapse of
the Old South in the Civil War, as it happened in Paris (the
Reign of Terror following the French Revolution).

A MICROCOSM THAT DEFINES THE MACROCOSM

     It has been suggested to me that I should include some kind
of glossary defining unfamiliar terms so that a casual reader is
not compelled to either find a dictionary, or give up on my text.
So let me offer a brief definition here.
     "Micro" means small and "cosm" is a contraction of "cosmos"
or universe.  "Macro" means immense.  So what I'd like to offer
now is an illustative example of a "small universe" that defines
socio-political concepts as they apply to an immense universe--
where issues grow more complex by virtue of a large population
of diverse and competitive individuals.
     The microcosm I'd like to examine is found, not in the real
world, but in the fictional one.
          
ROBINSON CRUSOE
     
     In 1719 Daniel Defoe wrote his classic adventure story of
Robinson Crusoe--an English seaman who was cast ashore from the
wreck of a wood-masted sailing ship, of which he was the only
survivor.
     Defoe, through the eyes of Robinson Crusoe, sees a lush but
uninhabited tropical island.  Crusoe's first hope--to find some
civilization from whence he might secure return passage to
England--is dashed to the ground as he realizes that he must
somehow eke out an existence with only the few crude tools he has
managed to salvage from the hull of the ship--and the knowledge
he had acquired during his life in England.
     So the beginning of the novel is a story on the theme of
man versus nature.  There is no antagonist, so there is no
society--there is no government.  There are no laws except
nature's laws, and thus no rewards or punishments--only
consequences.  Crusoe indeed enjoys the natural right of self-
determination (and consequences of his mistakes) and his right
to be left alone (because there are no busybody vigilantes to
interfere with his natural freedom).
     Crusoe begins his saga of survival by studying the resouces
on "his" island--its fruits and vegetables, its bird and animal
life which might provide meat, and the fish in the surrounding
ocean.  He also learns the hazards of poisonous reptiles and
insects, and the mental stress of complete isolation and lack of
any human contact.
     His close ties to nature awaken his natural "religious"
instinct--but what might (without his English upbringing) have
become pantheistic beliefs, seeing nature populated with pagan
god-figures, is rejected in favor of his Biblical tradition.
     Crusoe describes his daily routines, his making of crude
clothing to protect his body from the ravages of storms, and his
simple pleasures in exploring "his" vast estate, where he is the
only human being.
     And then one day he finds the print of a naked human foot in
the sand, flees in terror to his retreat, and is on guard against
this new threat.  The novel now develops the theme of man versus
man--the plot element of an antagonist has appeared.
     The climax of the new situation, as readers will recall, is
when Crusoe discovers a tribe of cannibals setting up a fire on
the beach with which to cook their bound victim, who obviously
knows what his fate is to be.
     Crusoe, having salvaged his ancient rifle--which he had used
for hunting--now fires the rifle, with its blast of gunpowder, to
drive off the cannibals in terror--leaving their bound victim
behind.  Crusoe releases the man, who falls to his knees in both
gratitude and supplication.  Crusoe helps the man to his feet,
pantomimes that there is nothing to fear, and his new companion
becomes his devoted servant.  Because the incident took place on
a Friday, Crusoe at once refers to his fellow human as "my man
Friday".
     We need not concern ourselves with subsequent developments
of the plot, which take Crusoe and Friday back to England, where
their social relationship becomes infinitely more complicated
than in their primitive island existence.  What I should like to
show now is how the relationship of Crusoe and Friday illustrate
the concepts of society and government, from the smallest to the
largest in the world today.

CRUSOE AND FRIDAY - SOCIETY

     Society began with the second man in the story--one man can
never be a society.  A society of two is a microcosm, but let us
look at the events in the story to see what social principles are
at work.
     First, society always has leaders and followers.  Leaders
are essentially those with power--the nucleus of what will in due
time become government.  How does a leader win his status?  Very
simple--by natural, or informal, authority.  He is followed
because in some way he is perceived by his follower(s) as being
superior.
     In ROBINSON CRUSOE, it is obvious that Crusoe was perceived
by Friday and the cannibals as some type of angry god--his white
skin was unlike any they had seen before, he had hair on his
face, shouted at them in an unintelligible language, and his
blunderbuss, with its exploding gunpowder and flash of flame with
puff of smoke must have been a terrifying exhibition of some
supernatural power.  But let's look at real life again.
     The opposite of natural authority is formal authority--that
which might be called "trickle-down" authority--the power is at
the top through some political process, rather than by being
earned by superior ability.
     If a man is recognized as a natural leader, he may be said
to be a natural aristocrat--a person whose natural superiority
exudes like an aura around him.  If aristocracy is formalized by
a political process it quickly degenerates into royalty, with all
the trappings of tyranny by government which is beyond control of
citizens, who are rightly called subjects.
     In THE RIGHTS OF MAN, Thomas Paine recounts with some relish
an incident of which he had personal knowledge.  After the War of
Independence, a European "nobleman" (mercifully unidentified by
Paine) wrote a letter to the Continental Congress, to the effect
that, now that America had thrown off the Elector of Hanover (aka
King George of England), the people would naturally need a new
king--and he offered his nobility for that job.  He explained how
superior his blood line was to King George's, and added that, if
the Congress did not choose him as America's new King, it would
be proper for the Congress to send him a few thousand gold coins
in gratitude for his noble offer.
     Paine chuckled that the letter went unanswered--and the gold
tribute was never paid.  Yet some people still cling to "royalty"
to this day!  But natural aristocracy is another story.  Thomas
Jefferson, in a letter to John Adams, wrote:

     I agree with you that there is a natural aristocracy among
     men.  The grounds of this are virtue and talents.
     
     Let us dispel the fantasy that all men are equal.  We are
all unique and different individuals--not clones in a beehive--
and if everyone is unique and different, equality is out of the
question.
     Whenever any informal social group is formed for any purpose
of interest to its members, a natural leader appears who is
chosen, perhaps unanimously, by the members of that group.  The
chosen leader may be a parent, a teacher, a clergyman, or any
other person with special talents, who is instinctively trusted
by other members of the group to guide their joint efforts for
mutual benefits--the fundamental purpose of society.
     Natural leadership is the natural aristocracy of Adams and
Jefferson--not a leadership imposed as the result of academic
degrees, financial status, or by political (POLICE) power.  The
leader is simply that--one chosen because of superior abilities,
or expertise, in the activity of interest to the group, whether
leading a labor union, a Scout troop, a church choir or a sewing
circle.
     It should be noted that such leaders are often volunteers,
and assume leadership as a trust, whether the position offers a
salary or not.  Another point about natural leadership, beside
the matter of unpaid services, is that the process often involves
DELEGATED AUTHORITY.
     First, the people who, by natural talent, are followers,
delegate by their consent some of their rights (or power of
self-determination) to their leader.  In turn a wise leader will
delegate some of his authority to chosen followers who display
some leadership ability of their own which is lying dormant and
awaiting the opportunity to be developed.

LEADERSHIP IN WORK RELATIONSHIPS
     
     We have seen that in informal social situations, the leader
is more often than not a volunteer, and his followers are also
unpaid.  Volunteerism is a characteristic of informal social
groups, which is of maximum benefit to all concerned, and is
often seen after a natural disaster, such as a hurricane or flood
when there is a spontaneous outpouring of volunteers to help in
relief efforts.  But in more formal social situations, a leader
might be given a token payment as a kind of honorarium: a choir
director or organist, for example, may receive a small stipend
from church funds.
     The most formal social situation, that of employer/employee
relationships on the job, crosses the line between informal and
formal authority.  For example, all employees are paid a salary
or wages for services rendered--the amount determined by free
negotiaions, which determines a sum the employer is willing to
pay and the employee is willing to accept.  A loyal employee may
be recognized for services rendered by promotion to higher rank
with greater compensation--and more FORMAL authority.
     Formal authority is what goes with a job title.  A man who
is in a supervisory capacity must oversee the job performance of
numerous lesser employees, and evaluate their performance just as
his own performance is being evaluated by his superiors.  Again,
however, the compensation for services performed is determined by
negotiation.
     It is trite but true that some individuals attain a certain
rank and status by the so-called "Peter Principle" which means
promotion to the level of one's incompetence, from which no
further promotion is possible.  Unfortunately for those beneath
the incompetent in power, he cannot be displaced easily, or
reduced to a lesser rank which he can handle with competence and
even superior skills.  There is a tendency in some situations for
incompetence to gravitate to the top.
     But we have been talking about private business in the free
enterprise world of making a profit, and exchanging real goods or
real services for wages or salary.  In the real world of business
there are rewards for efficiency and economy, and punishments
(possible "sacking") for inefficiency or going over one's budget.

EFFICIENCY IN GOVERNMENT--AN OXYMORON

     But if we leave the business world and enter the political
arena, we find ourselves in an Alice in Wonderland world of
exalted power, exalted salaries, non-existent production of real
goods, and often non-existent services.  There are numerous
political jobs--virtually sinecures called "plums"--which pay
incredible (by most working peoples' standards) salaries, and
have pretentious titles like the Third Assistant Mugwump to the
Chief Mugwump.  These jobs are sheer patronage, handed out as
"plums", or REWARDS, for political favors done in the past.
     The concepts of efficiency and economy are paid only the
most hypocritical lip service--day to day practice on the job in
a government office is a revelation in how much taxpayers' money
can be wasted how quickly.  Let me give you two examples from my
own knowledge.
     A young woman I will identify only as Margaret G. (she has
since taken a religious name) lived in Washington, DC, where her
father, a career military officer, "wangled" a summer job for her
during school vacation.  Margaret was a bright young lady of high
integrity.
     On her first day her supervisor gave her the assignment of
assigning parking spaces in the new parking lot for use by the
50 or 60 employees.  It was a rather complicated job because the
employees arrived and left at different times, had different
priorities in terms of leaving and returning during the work day
when on agency business, and some were handicapped with special
consideration given in terms of the distance to walk from their
cars to the building.  Margaret spent the entire morning on the
job, but could not finish it before lunch.
     So about an hour after lunch she took the completed lists to
her supervisor, and asked for her next assignment.
     Her supervisor (a woman) was aghast.  "Do you mean to say
you finished it already?"
     Margaret said yes, but it had been a little complicated, and
what was her next job?
     "But that was your job for the summer!" said the supervisor.
     Margaret said, "I quit."
     In short, the agency was prepared to pay her for three full
months to do a job she did in a little over three hours.  So much
for efficiency and economy.
     A similar story of profligacy with public money was told me
by a professional newsman in Washington, who had many friends in
many places.  He was told by a friend, who was a minor executive
in one agency, that by operating efficiently--like a businessman
must operate--he had ended the fiscal year with a surplus.  When
he told HIS supervisor that he was returning several thousand
dollars because it wasn't needed, the big boss said, "Spend that
money somehow, or our budget will be cut next year!"
     In short, by always spending every cent of their allotted
budget, bureaucrats have reason to ask for more.
     My friend's acquaintance then ordered new desks for every
cubbyhole in the office.  The old desks had been new two years
before and showed no real wear--but they went out to the used
furniture market, and his office had new desks for everyone.
     And they got a bigger budget allotment the next year.  The
boss had proved he needed more money, because they had had to buy
new office furniture that year.
     Do you begin to get a picture of the scope of government
waste and inefficiency?  Remember that next time you wait three
months for a reply to your letter to the IRS.
     But back to our Mugwumps and their inflated compensation
for doing nothing.  How can these fancy titles and salaries be
justified?  By any standard of natural authority or leadership,
they can't--but they are part of the corruption that goes with
the tax system.  Let's consider just how much money can be
involved.

THE TAX RACKET

     There are, at the last census with which I am familiar, some
280 million Americans at the present time.
     That's the secret that keeps the racket running.
     If every American were to give me just ONE CENT a year, not
a single person would really miss that penny.  But I would be a
wealthy man, with income of two million, eight hundred thousand
dollars a year.  Even after taxes, that's a sweet deal!
     But government isn't satisfied with a penny from every
American that nobody would miss.  Taxes are the biggest single
expense for every American--and many taxes are hidden in the
cost of items that appear to be non-taxable.
     I remember hearing Eleanor Roosevelt at a convocation at
my University in 1953, in which she spoke of the United Nations
in glowing terms, and said she didn't complain about the "ten
cents a year" it cost a taxpayer to keep the fiasco going.  Mrs.
Roosevelt was guilty of a propaganda trick.  Because the average
cost of supporting the United Nations worked out at about ten
cents a year per taxpayer, she ignored two realities: (1) that
many taxpayers paid a helluva lot more than ten cents a year:
and, (2) that the United Nations was, and is, an international
debating and espionage society of diplomats, who are merely
shysters with a portfolio.
     What does government actually PRODUCE to justify its
existence?  No goods whatsoever (that's up to factories and real
laborers).  It DOES produce a few services of value: national
defense, law and order (civil and criminal courts), and disaster
services.  These are all of genuine benefit to virtually every
American.
     But the bulk of governmental activity is NOT concerned with
these real services, but with the alleged services involved in
so-called taxing and spending "programs" aimed at redistributing
wealth.  And that is the key to understanding the source of all
graft, waste, and self-serving pontificating of our so-called
leaders in Washington (and state capitals as well).
     The fact that this charade of governmental services is
continued--and will do so until bankruptcy and civil disorder
cause a collapse of the entire nation--is because the bureaucracy
has become a self-sustaining monster, like Frankenstein's
creation that cannot be killed--at least not in any of the
numerous film adaptations and sequels to Mary Shelley's novel.

THE PORK BARREL GAME

     To show the enormity of the tax racket, let's set up a game
on your table.  I am indebted to my fellow Libertarian Jim Lewis
for this game, which I have modified a little from his version.
     You'll need a hundred poker chips--or any coins you have
handy--or sugar lumps will do nicely, too.  You'll also need a
big bowl in front of you, which you may label with any such
make-believe term as graft, pork barrel, slush fund, or simply
Big Brother.
     Count out ten piles of poker chips of ten chips each, and
place them in a row opposite you.  These ten piles of chips
represent money earned by ten taxpayers.  You have the best deal
in this game, even if you start dead broke without a single
chip of your own--because you are playing the government.
     We'll assume that our government is so efficient and so
concerned for our citizens that our tax rate is only 10% (I
said this was make believe!).
     First, you collect taxes from the taxpayers by stealing one
poker chip from each.  If they resist your theft, arrest them.
     Then you become benevolent.  Having taxed, you now spend, by
some social program which gives benefits of five chips to one of
the taxpayers.
     Well, that taxpayer is very happy with Big Brother's game of
tax and spend.  He started with 10 chips, and now has 14.  The
other taxpayers see the benefit--that's like a magician's patter
to misdirect attention.
     You collect another round of taxes--one chip each, and give
another player five chips.
     The game continues for ten rounds, so that each of the ten
taxpayers has received "benefits" once.
     Now count everybody's chips.
     Each taxpayer has exactly half of what he started the game
with--five, to be precise.  Big Brother has fifty--as many as all
the rest put together.
     Those fifty chips are the graft, pork barrel, or slush fund
that oils the lousy stinking governmental bureaucracy.  And just
remember we're not talking about a trivial 10% tax--our taxes are
among the highest in the world.
     Chief Justice John Marshall, in McCULLOCH V MARYLAND (1819)
wrote that "the power to tax involves the power to destroy."
What is destroyed is free enterprise, a vital motivator in the
right of self-determination which socialists would annihilate if
they could.  Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., had a more
sanguine attitude toward taxes, writing in COMPANIA DE TOBACOS V
COLLECTOR (1924) that "taxes are what we pay for civilized
society."
     This opinion I regard as pure propaganda and a shining star
of gratuitous assumptions.  First, "civilized society" is about
the most perfect example one can conceive of the glittering
generality--vague and imprecise, meaning anything to anybody,
and therefore nothing.  It SOUNDS GOOD, which is part of all
propaganda.
     Second, society is not government, and government is not
society.  The Supreme Court recognized this crucial difference in
U.S. v BUTLER (the basis of Chapters 1 and 2 of THE REVOLUTIONARY
RIGHT), when it ruled, "a tax is an exaction for the support of
the government".  Not for civilized society--but to keep the
bureaucracy running.
     Third, government is out of control, because of its bloated
size and lack of truly authoritative oversight of operations.  It
is virtually a private money-making club, run by and for the
shysters who are elected as public servants(!) and, of course,
are in fact in the driver's seat rather than the back of the bus
where most of them belong.
     Let us pause again for a moment to emphasize one crucial
point which no Libertarian should ever forget.  It is a very old
idea, but always new to some.
     POWER CORRUPTS.
     Not just occasionally.
     Not just frequently.
     ALWAYS.  And the greater the power the greater the corrup-
tion.  No matter how "spiritual" a man might profess to be, if
he is catapulted to a position of political authority, he quickly
becomes as corrupt as any other politician.
     Here's an example from recent world history.  The late Shah
of Iran was a dictator who deported a religious fanatic and
trouble-maker, the Ayatollah Homeini, to France.  Had the Shah
been wiser he might have had the Ayatollah assassinated.  The
Ayatollah's exile made him a hero to Islamic fundamentalists, and
from France the Ayatollah masterminded a revolution against the
Shah.
     The Ayatollah returned and quickly established a religious
tyranny in Iran--one act of which was to impose a sentence of
death upon author Salman Rushdie, who had written a book held by
Islamic fundamentalists to be blasphemous of their prophet
Mohammed.  Ayatollah Homeini died a few years ago, but his
successors, of the same intolerant religion, have refused to lift
the sentence of death against Rushdie, and carry on their prede-
cessor's fanaticism.
     In all the world there is no tyranny like the mental tyranny
of religious fundamentalism (Chistian, Jewish or Islamic), and
once a religious fanatic attains exalted political power, the
corruption of liberty in that nation is a foregone conclusion.

HOW TO ERADICATE TYRANNY IN AMERICA     

     First, we must educate the people to the truth as shown by
history, logic, and the Libertarian concepts of this primer.
     Second, we must try to bring about peaceful and orderly
changes by Constitutional revision.
     Third, we must realize that our politicians and Courts
(same thing) will block each and every attempt of the people to
do so.
     Fourth, we must prepare for civil war.
     Fifth, if it must come to civil war, we must be prepared to
fight to the death.
     Sixth, if there must be war and liberty triumphs over
tyranny, we must have a new Constitution to submit to the people
who survive the carnage that must occur in such a conflict.
     Therefore, for that purpose, my next and final offering to
Internet readers will be an outline--a draft--for a Libertarian
Constitution, to forever prevent any maneuvers by any politicians
or Courts to abuse their discretionary (DELEGATED) powers, by
establishing mandatory review of abuses by government at any
level.  We must adopt the slogan of Jews in reference to Masada--
NEVER AGAIN!