The Aristotelian concept of the “good life” is one in which the individual is most happy and content. This can encompass many things, while universally condemning acts of universal evil such as murder. Value being subjective as it is, it would not be a stretch to say that leisure occupies a higher rung on the ordinal scale of preferences for most people. Less you are an extreme workaholic who requires no sleep, the disutility of labor can be too appealing to pass up.
Because humans take action to dispel uneasiness, an unburdensome world can be thought of as one requiring no action, or at least very little activity at all. No labor, no critical thought, and no surprises – this is the kind of halcyon environment which exists only in retellings of ancient tales. Thomas Jefferson once remarked that he preferred the “tumult of liberty” to the “quiet of servitude.” Being the autodidact he was, it is likely a majority of people do not share in his contempt for the monotonous.
As much as I appreciate leisure, it seems life would be a bore without a turning of events – both for the better and worse. A desire for peace does not necessarily equate to a want for tediousness. Having a routine can be conducive to pursuing more scholastic ends. But when it comes to worldly events, expecting the worst can carry its own charm.
In our current political world of bumbling doofuses and bright, scheming planners, there is little to be surprised about. Wars are fought, taxes are raised, torture is committed, and cultural Marxism runs amok. A statesman who stands up to the driving force of government power yelling “stop” is a true rarity. The bundles of word-processed paper – mistakenly called laws – which emerge from the smoke-filled rooms and corners of Congress or Parliament contain one purpose: shatter civil society at the gain of state authority. Expecting anything good from the minds of politicians is like expecting good from the mind of a serial killer. The prerogative is control and perpetuation of the lie of state eternality.
The recent string of scandals in the Obama administration – which has thus far culminated with the outing of a massive data collection racket – has been met with a tremendous amount of ire. Conservatives are taking the opportunity to cast the President as the big government man he is. The Left, which appears to finally be having its Emperor-has-no-clothes moment, is being equally critical. For once, the class of media squawkers appears genuinely upset the U.S. government is engaged in a massive data collection scheme without the permission of the users to whom the information belongs. Essentially, they are finally doing their jobs as state critics. Bask in the integrity while it lasts because it’s not here to stay. Soon enough, the flippant remarks of some self-immolating celebrity will reclaim the news cycle.
What surprised this author about the government’s massive metadata collection wasn’t the startled reaction of the press, but the shocked attitude of libertarian colleagues of mine. I could only offer a chuckle and shake my head when the story broke. News of a gargantuan state information gathering scheme taking place has been around for years now, beginning with the rushed passing of the Patriot Act. As Scott Locklin writes,
The Federation of Atomic Scientsts has been reporting on this for decades. Whistleblowers and journalists have been talking about these programs for generations. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has actually been filing lawsuits against the NSA and the telecom industry on these specific issues for years now.
In April of 2012, whistleblower William Binney revealed on the leftist Democracy Now! that the National Security Agency had collected up to 20 trillion data points documenting individual transactions. A month ago, it was reported the agency was storing up to 1.7 billion emails, phone calls, and other communications a day. The outrage did not peak until the Guardian’s breaking of the judge-ordered Verizon shakedown made headlines. News of the same mass confiscation at AT&T, Sprint, major credit card companies, and various other high tech corporations came a day after. It took well over a year for the mass public to finally believe what has been occurring for years. On some standard – perhaps one which measures the collective boobusness of Americans – such a delay is probably impressive.
The news of the mammoth information accumulation orchestrated by the government should not be surprising to anyone who understands the purpose behind all political action. The state will always be a gang of thugs that helps itself to society’s wealth, no matter who is elected or appointed. Even in Canada, the ostensible home to “good government,” the current payoff scandal involving Senator Mike Duffy and former Chief of Staff to Prime Minister Stephen Harper is snowballing upon itself into something bigger. There are calls on both sides of the political aisle for investigation into Parliamentary expenses as well as an audit of the Prime Minister’s office. Still, the stench of corruption, no matter how familiar, always seems to surprise even the most veteran of political observers. It’s almost a question of who to resent more: pernicious state bureaucrats or the dumbfounded who continuously appear shocked at every new controversy.
With the American public’s short-term memory now focused on their internet pornography searches being read by government officials, actual tragedies will continue to receive little attention. Little outcry was heard when Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, the 16-year-old son of Islamic cleric Anwar Awlaki, was killed via drone strike along with eight others. Former Obama Press Secretary Robert Gibbs blamed the killing of the innocent teenager on his irresponsible father. All the pro-lifers on the Right never uttered a word about it. While they focus on warrantless data collection at home, the Empire they support abroad is slaughtering women and children by the hundreds. Army private Bradley Manning has been held in captivity for years for leaking military secrets the Pentagon determined were no threat to national security, with a trial only recently beginning. Like the young al-Awlaki, he received minute attention. I would like to say I am surprised by the total apathy, but I am not. Such is the narrowed purview of those who wrap themselves in the national flag while claiming the mantle of “limited government.” The very reason the U.S. government’s spy ring is seeing so much outrage is the attention paid to domestic surveillance. Disgusting arch nationalism that inhabits the mind of most Americans acts as an obstruction for offense. In their eyes, those who live outside Uncle Sam’s borders are subhumans – not to be afforded the same human rights as superior yankees.
Glenn Greenwald, the staunch civil libertarian and well-read blogger who broke the story, will likely be investigated by the Department of Justice for his leaking of the NSA scoop. In an interview with the New York Times, Greenwald says that while he may be looked into, “what I am doing is exactly what the Constitution is about and I am not worried about it.” It’s nice to read such optimism – despite its naive understanding of government power. Perhaps Greenwald was being coy, as the Constitution in theory protects his speech. The reality is that the Constitution, to borrow Lysander Spooner’s distinction, neither limited the authority of the American state or was designed to be impotent to stop it. Instead of welcoming the debate over civil liberties as Obama promised, the biggest news since Nixon’s paranoid spying episode would be erased from the public’s already-forgetful mind if the President could make such a thing was possible. Greenwald promises there will be more revelations – a welcome invitation for a well-timed drone strike if that too could be pulled off clandestinely.
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper has called the leaks gut-wrenching – implying that the data mining was supposed to remain under wraps and out of view of the American people. Counter to these hyperbolic claims, it’s highly unlikely The Enemy wasn’t already aware of the U.S. government’s vast surveillance apparatus. According to the leaker, 29-year-old Edward Snowden, “any analyst at any time can target anyone…anywhere,” regardless of authority. Even the President’s personal email could be snooped upon by the intelligence community – a clear and ironic victory for egalitarianism. Expecting this sort of repugnant behavior by government is, contrary to feel-goody reasoning, quite healthy. As the old Paulian dictum goes, it’s best to not expect much so as to prepare yourself for pleasant surprises. To the overpaid, underworked NSA bureaucrat reading this article, I can only offer a wry “hello” and a polite “go to hell.”