The Osama Bin Laden Tape

Today Osama bin Laden released a videotape on al-Jazeera warning of the possibility of new attacks, and offering somewhat of an explanation for the World Trade Center attacks (transcript here). Bin Laden's statements reveal a confused and simplistic worldview, although one markedly more reasoned than what has been indicated in his previous statements. His words were not of jihad or infidels, and his statements seemed purposefully westernized and political. It seems most probable that Bin Laden, by voicing his opinion in such a manner and in such close proximity to the presidential election, is attempting to portray himself as logical and diplomatic. He seems to have assumed a demeanor purposefully opposed to Bush's characterizations of him as a madman, killer, and religious fanatic. In doing so he most probably intends to legitimize his elevation to the level of global political power.
He masterfully recognizes that the entire western world is tired of death, weary of this war, and ready to be rid of this constant fear. He no doubt intends to exploit this weariness for his own gain. Assuming the 9/11 attacks were in fact in response to American presence in the Middle East and support of Israel (which we have no reason to disbelieve), Bin Laden seems to be offering what would be at once a diplomatic solution and a major coup. Bin Laden has proposed what appears to be a tempting and logical exchange: withdraw U.S. troops from the Middle East, cease support of Israel, and you will be safe from terrorist attacks. Yet this exchange lives entirely in the present. It neglects the reality of what happened in New York and Washington D.C. on 9/11. It neglects the reality that Bin Laden is a mass murderer who cannot be treated as a diplomat. Yet despite all this, Bin Laden's offer is genius in its mixed meaning and divisiveness.
This latest video is a wolf in sheep's clothing. It presents a diplomatic end to this death and madness that is just logical enough to blind us from the fact that it is in reality blackmail, and that Bin Laden cannot murder thousands and remain free. He presents what appears at first to be a third option: not war, not capitulation, but an equal exchange.
Through the tired eyes of a beseiged western world, this exchange may even seem to be equal to some. There will no doubt be those who are baited by his words, who demand that we forgive and forget, so that we may live our lives without fear. But would we be able to live without fear in a world where Bin Laden achieved his goals through the murder of innocents? What guarantee would we have that we will never see our families shattered by senseless, arbitrary violence? We would have none, and this is why there is no forgiving, there is no forgetting. No matter what stance we take on the possibility of the threat of Saddam, no matter what our views are regarding the continuation of the War in Iraq, there is no question regarding Osama Bin Laden. Bin Laden killed thousands of innocent civilians on September 11th, 2001. No amount of posturing and rhetoric can take that away. Bin Laden is a murderer, and murderers cannot engage in diplomacy.
The challege for Americans and the rest of the world at this point is not to be blinded by partisan politics, not to allow ourselves to be blackmailed, and to realize the truth of the situation. Blind, reactionary patriotism is not the answer, nor is scared, cowardly capitulation. I only hope now that we can see through the media spin, the political agendas, and the conniving of our enemies to see what must be done to protect our lives and our liberties, and to defeat this enemy.

Free Equitism

The Fundamental Laws of Free Equitism:
I. The individual shall be regarded as sovereign and reserve every right to action so long as said actions do not infringe on the sovereignty or rights of others.
II. The individual shall be free to enter into any contract or agreement, so long as said contracts and/or agreements do not infringe upon the rights of others. No person shall be bound by any contract or agreement to which he or she has not agreed.
III. There shall be established an entity responsible for the preservation of individual sovereignty and individual rights as they pertain to the individual's interaction with organizations.
IV. This entity shall consist of delegates chosen by direct democratic elections. These delegates shall be susceptible to recall whenever their electors deem necessary.
V. This entity shall in no case attempt to limit or interfere with the sovereign individual, but will intercede only on behalf of the individual when said individual's rights are endangered by the actions of an organization or the violation of a contract by an organization.
VI. This entity shall be funded by voluntarily entered taxation contracts, to be established by direct democratic elections. No individual who does not voluntarily enter into these contracts shall be subject to taxation, nor shall they receive protection from said entity.
VII. This entity's actions shall be absolutely limited to the preservation of individual rights and sovereignty in their interactions with organizations. This entity shall be explicitly prohibited from attempting or accepting any expansion of its powers to include other duties.

Explication:
Herein I propose a mode of governmental and social organization which maximizes stability and freedom among a body of individuals, and in which no individual is coerced or dominated. This is a social organization in which each individual is completely free and completely equal, each having the power over their own actions, without coercive interference by government or other individuals.

In a democratic system, each individual signs away their freedom (through voting) to the state in exchange for a share of the freedom of others via the state. This system does not, however, yield an equal exchange of freedoms. In a traditional democratic system the majority rules in that if 51 percent of a population is in agreement on an issue, the say of the remaining (opposing) 49 percent is completely cancelled out and nullified. Democracy is an all-or-nothing system in which opinions only matter if they are in accordance with the majority. Because of this, traditional democratic systems are traditionally flawed; they are based primarily on interpersonal and social coercion and not on individual sovereignty.

The nature of government is to act in the interests of its primary constituent unit. In a representative democracy, this unit is the representative (who represents arbitrarily sized, variable social units) and not the individual, and thus the rights of the individual are easily impinged upon. The most efficient, free, and equal government is that in which the individual is the primary, sovereign unit. This is because the individual is not an abstraction or theory, rather it is a concrete reality. When a governmental system is based on the individual, it will naturally serve the interests of each individual, and will not subvert these interests to higher social abstractions without consent of the individual. Since the individual cannot be divided further, assigning primacy to the individual does not adversely affect the well-being of any smaller unit. The individual makes decisions, the individual has will, and the individual is naturally free and sovereign. In a system with such a basis, each individual would retain all of their rights so long as they do not willingly surrender them.

What then would be the form of this government system having its basis in the individual? This system would be one in which the individual is completely sovereign, with the only limitation on action being the necessity of respecting the sovereignty of others within the society. Of course individuals will not naturally respect the rights of others unless they are compelled to do so, and so it will become necessary for individuals to establish private security or protection agencies ensuring the sovereignty of each individual where he or she cannot do so. These agencies or companies will be free to enter into contracts with individuals, so long as these contracts are willingly agreed upon by both the company and the sovereign individual. It therefore follows that there will be no case in which a company will be allowed to impose its services on a "non-subscriber". Of course the individual will not always be able to ensure the preservation of his or her own rights, so it will be necessary to grant some entity sovereignty over the interactions between individual and company, although not directly over the individual. This entity we will here call the oversight body.

The oversight body is an extremely limited form of government in which delegates are elected by direct democratic processes. These delegates, who are susceptible to immediate recall upon failure to perform their duties as assigned by voters, will be charged with establishing systems to ensure equality and freedom in the relations between organization and individual. While the individual will remain absolutely free to enter into contracts with any organization or other individual, these organizations are responsible for holding the individual responsible for the terms of these contracts. The oversight body is in turn responsible for the limitation of private organizations in their interactions with individuals. Whereas the individual holds the primary rights in a society, the organization will in the vast majority of situations have superior resources and greater potential for coercive action; because of this, organizations must be limited in whatever case they threaten the rights of the individual. The oversight body will never directly interfere with the actions of the individual, and will only mediate between the contractual organization and the individual when the rights of the individual are threatened unjustly.

The most significant example of the operation of this system arises concerning private protection entities and their jurisdiction. If a group of individuals (for example, a city) decides to "subscribe" to a protection service, this service will have jurisdiction over every individual who has agreed to the contractual terms of the service. If then there is a robbery, and if the robber is bound by a protection contract, he or she will be apprehended by the victim's protection entity and penalized according to the terms of the contract. If, however, the robber is not bound by any protection contract, they will be without protection against robbery, and individuals will be free to legally steal from them. It is therefore within the best interest of everyone in a society to subscribe to a protection service, and to abide by the contractual rules of that service. Those outside of the contract will be without protection, and will be free to steal, etc. However, they will be susceptible to retaliation by anyone in society, and will therefore be incapable of maintaining socially unacceptable behavior. In this system, each individual is responsible for their own well-being and protection, and society will naturally be directed toward a state of order, since order is within the best interest of each individual.

In this manner, a system of social interaction and government is established in which each individual is self-governing and independent, while concurrently receiving whatever protection they deem necessary on a contractual basis. The system will be protected from dangerous monopolies of any kind (especially monopolies on the use of force) by the oversight body, which will limit the activities of organizations to protect the individual. By prohibiting direct action on the individual by the oversight body and holding organizations responsible for the enforcement of their contracts, the individual's sovereignty is maintained while preserving order by limiting the actions of private organizations. At the same time, individual freedom is maintained by subjecting individuals only to the will of private entities within the bounds of contractual agreement. The result is an ordered system of total freedom and total equality, both democratic and individualistic, in which no person is subject to coercion by any other.