Restricting liberty inevitably tragic
(My Clovis News Journal column for May 30, 2014. Sorry, I was late posting the whole thing to the blog this time!)
As soon as I heard about the Santa Barbara, California, murders I held my breath and waited for the anti-gun advocates to start dancing in the blood- I didn't need to wait long.
Six innocent people died- three of those shot to death. All because one person (who came from a home of confessed anti-gun advocates, by the way) felt rejected and inferior. He was seething with homicidal racial hatred, against "white people" and "black" men, which he blamed on blonde women who wouldn't date him.
His rants showed no hint of self responsibility for his situation, nor any awareness that perhaps women- all women- rejected him because he was exhibiting violent tendencies, socially awkward behavior, and harboring violent fantasies.
I'm sure if he had survived his murder spree he would claim no responsibility for those who died at his hands, but would blame his victims in some way.
Many other people will choose to place the blame elsewhere, as he did, but on one tool he used, instead. He blamed blonde women; most observers with an anti-liberty bias will blame the gun. In their minds it couldn't be entirely his fault.
Might as well pretend the stabbing deaths didn't happen, or find a way to blame them on the gun, too. It's the standard drill after these tragedies occur.
California already has some of the most onerous anti-gun laws in the country- the same kind we are told will keep us safe. How is that working out?
Gun haters believe if you just keep kids away from guns, and keep them ignorant about how guns work, the kids will be safe.
Let's try the same with water safety and see how refusing to teach kids to swim, or sensible behavior in and around water, pans out. Don't act shocked and angered- and don't blame water- when kids drown due to enforced ignorance.
Kids and guns do mix. It's the best way to teach them the proper way to use the tools, and the consequences of mishandling them, early enough for the lessons to stick. In addition, the libertarian principle of never "initiating force" will go a long way toward avoiding intentional aggression, with or without a gun.
Some people find it easier to blame inanimate objects, or claim other people made them do bad things. Plus, as long as people keep seeking excuses to justify aggression, while at the same time demonizing defensive violence, more tragedies will result.
Restricting liberty is never the solution, and inevitably leads to a tragic destination. It's long past time to start respecting the Rightful Liberty of every person, whoever and wherever they may be.
.
Thursday, July 03, 2014
Liberty Lines, July 3, 2014
(Published in The State Line Tribune, Farwell, TX/Texico, NM)
I can't believe the arrogance of those who decide to give themselves more power over the lives of people they previously had no "authority" over.
Some people choose to live beyond city limits in order to enjoy a little extra freedom from the intrusive and meddlesome rules that towns are known to make up out of thin air (usually "justified" by "health and safety") and enforce.
Extending a town's jurisdiction in this way is a betrayal, no matter what "state law" may allow. It's really no different than Canada suddenly deciding to control what people in Montana can do on their own property. Sure, governments jealously guard their own tax cows, and Montanans are already claimed, and well milked, by several different levels of government, but people choose to not live under more government than they want for a reason. This status quo is like a truce- live and let live. This proposed expansion of "jurisdiction" is a violation of that implicit truce.
Take a hard look at those pushing for this expansion of government intrusion. Never believe them if they claim to be for "limited government" while seeking to expand government control in such a large way. You now know exactly what they are and how they see you.
Does this mean the Farwell police department is admitting there isn't enough actual, real trouble in Farwell proper to keep them busy, so they feel a need to extend their territory? If so, cut back on employees, put the remainder on part time, and refund the savings to the residents. I can "police" myself- as can almost every other person in town. And together, without any "official help", we can keep the actual aggressors and property violators in line- apparently unless they hold political office or draw their pay from the tax loot.
Mike Pomper- In last week's Border Banter you wrote "us homies cannot do a blasted thing about" all the new federal regulations which will be imposed on us in the near future. Sure we can! We choose whether to obey or not. I realize you may not want to be an outlaw, but you had better get over it. Soon, all the decent people will be outlaws. Maybe "soon" is already here.
In "Atlas Shrugged", Ayn Rand wrote "There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws." That time is upon us. It's interesting how applicable that quote is to the first part of my column as well.
.
I can't believe the arrogance of those who decide to give themselves more power over the lives of people they previously had no "authority" over.
Some people choose to live beyond city limits in order to enjoy a little extra freedom from the intrusive and meddlesome rules that towns are known to make up out of thin air (usually "justified" by "health and safety") and enforce.
Extending a town's jurisdiction in this way is a betrayal, no matter what "state law" may allow. It's really no different than Canada suddenly deciding to control what people in Montana can do on their own property. Sure, governments jealously guard their own tax cows, and Montanans are already claimed, and well milked, by several different levels of government, but people choose to not live under more government than they want for a reason. This status quo is like a truce- live and let live. This proposed expansion of "jurisdiction" is a violation of that implicit truce.
Take a hard look at those pushing for this expansion of government intrusion. Never believe them if they claim to be for "limited government" while seeking to expand government control in such a large way. You now know exactly what they are and how they see you.
Does this mean the Farwell police department is admitting there isn't enough actual, real trouble in Farwell proper to keep them busy, so they feel a need to extend their territory? If so, cut back on employees, put the remainder on part time, and refund the savings to the residents. I can "police" myself- as can almost every other person in town. And together, without any "official help", we can keep the actual aggressors and property violators in line- apparently unless they hold political office or draw their pay from the tax loot.
_
Mike Pomper- In last week's Border Banter you wrote "us homies cannot do a blasted thing about" all the new federal regulations which will be imposed on us in the near future. Sure we can! We choose whether to obey or not. I realize you may not want to be an outlaw, but you had better get over it. Soon, all the decent people will be outlaws. Maybe "soon" is already here.
In "Atlas Shrugged", Ayn Rand wrote "There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws." That time is upon us. It's interesting how applicable that quote is to the first part of my column as well.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)