Authoritarianism and the bomb

Nuclear weapons are one of the most imminent dangers to the continual survival of humanity as we know it. Never before in history has a technology had such a potential for mass death and destruction. According to estimates by the Federation of American Scientists there are over 20,000 nuclear weapons across the globe, 8,500 of which are the property of the United States government. Currently at least eight nations have first strike capability and more have begun the process of developing nukes. For any nation-state that wishes to be a political power in the current international community, possession of or access to a nuclear arsenal is a must.

After the detonation of the first nuclear bomb in 1945 humanity was promised that nuclear technology would change our world for the better. Nuclear weapons represented the pinnacle of scientific progress, and some believed that they would prevent another world war. The possibilities seemed limitless. Over 70 years later many of the promises made regarding nuclear technology have failed to come true. Instead, we have been left to contend with the most lethal military technology ever produced in history.

The destructive nature of nuclear weapons demands they be contained within an authoritarian, hierarchical system, to ensure proper care, maintenance, protection, and possible utilization. Nuclear weapons can not exist securely in a democratic system, in fact their hazardous qualities would increase exponentially if their use was subjected to the democratic process. Nuclear weapons have an inherent political ideology, and that ideology is authoritarian. In the United States, as in all nuclear-weapon states, control of the nuclear arsenal rests in the hands of the military, which is itself a hierarchical and undemocratic organization, and not in the hands of the people or their elected representatives.

I believe humanity should live in a world free of nuclear weapons. No technology of such a destructive nature should exist, and no government should possess such a technology. The United States and the global community must work towards the goal of total nuclear disarmament. Americans, as the citizens of a nuclear-weapons state, are living in an authoritarian technocracy. This country is subject to the authority of a single technological entity and as long as our government continues to hold nuclear weapons they will dominate our politics and policy.

A Libertarian dilemma

There is something about Ron Paul I like. When I hear him speak his demeanor, his straight talk, and his no-nonsense attitude endears him to me. When I read about his opposition to American foreign policy, his desire to preserve constitutional rights, to end the federal use of torture, and maintain a strict separation of church and state, I can feel my head begin to nod involuntarily.

For the past few years I have considered myself a libertarian. The focus on individual liberty, less bureaucratic blundering, and political freedom appealed to me. But just as with every ideology there is a flip side, a darker side. With all the focus on the individual humanity as a whole is forgotten. A libertarian believes the individual should be responsible for themselves and those they love because a libertarian believes that the American dream is available to every citizen. A libertarian believes that we are all equal in a free market system.

I no longer consider myself a libertarian because I no longer believe the American dream is available to all of us. I was born with opportunities that my parents provided for me. Because of their love for me they worked (and continue to work) hard to ensure that I would have food, shelter, clothing, an education, and a future. I married an intelligent, driven, ambitious woman who has worked tirelessly to gain an education that will provide us both with a more than satisfactory source of income. I inherited the American dream. I am a fortunate man, much more fortunate than the 15% of America living under the poverty line.

According to a report by the US Census Bureau 46.2 million Americans were living in poverty in 2010. Poverty in America has been on the rise for the past 11 years. I can not accept that all these millions have been in poverty simply because they did not take advantage of readily available opportunities. Certainly many are impoverished due to their own choices or lifestyle, but poverty is growing despite the supposed equality of opportunity promised by the American dream. Hardworking, intelligent Americans are in poverty. As American citizens I believe we all have a responsibility to help the impoverished among us. I also believe our government, as our representative, has a responsibility to help the millions of hungry, destitute, and uneducated Americans.

Ron Paul is against any federal involvement in health care. He claims that he would never raise taxes. Never. He would eliminate a majority of federal agencies including the Department of Commerce, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Education, the Interstate Commerce Commission, and the Internal Revenue Service. He would eliminate the Federal Reserve. Ron Paul, as a strict libertarian, seems to believe that the federal government either can not or should not be directly involved in supporting the health, commerce, and education of American citizens.

I sense the dark side of the libertarian ideology is a dangerous, cancerous mindset: indifference. If we choose to focus on only ourselves and reject the concept of a government that uses resources to help those in need then indifference may become the norm. How could dismantling the government agencies and social programs that help reduce poverty possibly be in our best interests? Even if these agencies and programs can sometimes be slow, incompetent, or abused, would we truly be better off in their utter absence? Can a nation survive if its citizens and government are indifferent to the basic needs of the impoverished among us? Is this the sort of nation we want?