We see it today in our own society. There are people who believe the government can solve problems and are willing to allow others to take control of their lives. There’s no question that the bureaucracy still believes that if it herds enough citizens into cities and provides enough essential services, the rank and file can be brought. under their control. Substantial amounts of propaganda regarding the indispensability and wisdom of government are a prime ingredient in this formula. Then those who wish to continue this feudal system under their own superior “leadership” can prevail over the rest of us.
This simple little concept in this brief chapter is the core of city survivaclass="underline" Those who are and/or will allow themselves to be wards of the government don’t have the slightest prayer of making it in a truly grinchy city-survival situation. In times past it was said, “Understand this concept and live free. Neglect it and become a slave.” In cities it’s life and death, not just freedom and slavery
The problem is that city survivors have a greater struggle in avoiding this evil trap. Providing essential goods and services to naturally independent, widely scattered, historically self-sufficient country people is so inefficient that governments that try quickly go broke. Currently few make the effort. There are just not enough people concentrated any place out in the country to be worth dealing with.
Also, I strongly suspect that in our modern times, other than in a few remote and insignificant regions around the globe, there no longer are enough people in the country to carry out a successful counter-revolution.
This does not suggest that government officials are no longer paranoid in the finest Maoist-Stalinist tradition. Although it is not widely known or popularly understood outside certain regions, significant numbers of freedom-loving citizens in Washington state, Oregon, Idaho, and western Montana view current government Wild Lands proposals—which are plans to move people from their rural homes and into cities to allow the land to go back to nature—as being little more than a thinly disguised method of putting the people in the position of becoming wards of the government. The fact that Wild Lands proponents receive huge amounts of under-the-table government money in direct defiance of congressional oversight or approval—very similar to CIA funding during our Vietnam era—does little to calm citizen fears.
Yet changes in our society are occurring at a breathtaking rate. Our military recognizes this truth when it prepares to fight in cities. Unstoppable events, including dramatic advances in technology way beyond our control (and perhaps even our understanding), are pushing all of us into living in built-up areas. These areas are characterized by high population densities and large numbers of buildings, and put us in great danger of dependence on government for goods and services.
But back in New York on the phone with the men’s magazine reporter, my question was, “What absolutely vital goods and services necessary to daily existence do you rely on that are provided by the government?”
His answer was a no-brainer in more ways than one. “Absolutely nothing,” he quickly thundered back. That these people are all cut from similar cloth should not be a surprise. He was now had by the ears, but he didn’t quite know it. Sounded familiar.
“Oh,” says I, affecting my best innocence, “then you can own a firearm of some sort, thereby taking personal responsibility for your own immediate security?” Keep in mind it was New York on the line, where personal responsibility for security has been lost for decades.
“Why would I even dream of owning a gun? I don’t want to attack anyone,” was his instant response. Obviously he was from one of those new touchy-feely type of men’s magazines that wouldn’t touch articles about guns, cockfighting, cigars, or bear hunting on a bet.
There are those among us who believe that our president’s cur rent tirade against gun owners is not really about diverting attention from his many other shortcomings, but rather a thinly disguised attempt to make average citizens more dependent on government. This theory gains credibility when we realize again that our police forces have no binding legal responsibility to protect us! Citizens have repeatedly tried to sue for damages when they were denied permission to own a gun for self-protection and were subsequently attacked. Suits for damages against their police departments got nowhere.
It’s true that Thomas Jefferson believed Americans should own firearms as a final last resort against government officials who oppress them. But in this era of wall-to-wall cities, it may be more than that. There is also the matter of government ownership and distribution—either through direct ownership or indirectly through licensing—of electricity, heat, water, communications (radio, phone, and TV), transportation, and postal services. But self-protection is even more at the core than these.
Numerous experts have pointed out that Stalin could never have murdered and carried out deportations in the Ukraine, Mao in northern China, Pol Pot in Cambodia, or England in Scotland (during their 18th-century war of independence) had average citizens been even modestly well armed.
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, author and philosopher, believes the Russian people could have even successfully resisted the secret police and going to the gulags with little more than resolute application of axes, butcher knives, harvesting tools, and meat hooks. Sounds like lots of resoluteness, but his idea is duly noted.
The reporter never did admit to seeing the connection between private firearms and freedom, but he seemed to warm to the idea that official provision of sewer, garbage, and water service could quickly lead to significant control. “Fact is,” he said, “I vividly recall our garbage strike and what an incredible mess that turned out to be,” he finally admitted.
He did weasel a bit by claiming garbage service was private in New York. “Yes, private, but maintained by a government-enforced monopoly,” I suggested. “All they have to do is threaten to pull the company’s permit and your garbage collectors will do whatever the bureaucracy wants. You cannot legally go into any business in New York without official sanction,” I reminded him.
Water is extremely important to city survivors. Failure of supply could be as serious as going without personal protection, and could arguably be as vital or more vital than personal gun ownership. But to claim that garbage is more important than guns is just that.
Other than electric utilities being government-controlled monopolies, is the electrical system in very many big cities in America still directly owned and controlled by the government? During the 1920s and ’30s many small, more rural cities developed their own electrical systems—mostly small-scale hydro projects. Currently, even when utility companies are not collectively owned, the authorities can throw their considerable weight around, denying service to anyone they wish. This is exactly how it works in Cuba, where average citizens don’t receive enough power each day to successfully run a refrigerator!