Tuesday, September 30, 2014

State-provided security ridiculous

State-provided security ridiculous

(My Clovis News Journal column for August 29, 2014.)

People claim government must provide security- by which they usually mean police and military- because security is much too important to leave to the market to provide (which they confuse with leaving it to chance), or to do without.

Yet, nothing is more important than air. Being so vital, shouldn't we let government inspect, bottle, and ration air to make certain we all get our safe and clean fair share? We'd pay higher taxes for that, right? When someone breaks the rules the government can just cut off their air supply (no, not their easy-listening '70s music, their oxygen; not the Oxygen television network, the life-sustaining atmospheric gas). That would end crime and silence malcontents quickly!

Trees, oceanic algae, and chemists would have to be regulated to prevent unauthorized oxygen production. And something would have to be done to secure the borders to prevent immigrating air from infiltrating American lungs. Not breathing at all would be better than breathing foreign air!

Yeah, it sounds silly. Pretending security must be provided by the State is just as ridiculous.

Guess what- security, like air, is all around you. It is within you and me, and between us. If only we don't pretend it has to be provided by others.

Like it or not, you are the militia, and defending your home and family- and by extension your surroundings- is best done by you. That's real security. Plus, by accepting your militia responsibility you can protect your liberty from the most dangerous of enemies: the "domestic" ones.

When the Second Amendment- the law making the passage and enforcement of "gun control" a serious crime- was being debated, Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts said, "What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."

One path leads to security, the other, to tyranny.

So, here we are. They were allowed to get away with it. The militia failed in its duty to prevent the government from establishing its own standing military, the people generally approve and ignore the tragedy, anti-gun "laws" result in much death and suffering, and liberty is dying at an accelerating pace. And still, people clamor for more security to be bottled and distributed. We would do well to remember Gerry's quote and its implications. Or recognize the reality that security shouldn't be handled by those who fear liberty the most. Any security they promise is smoke and mirrors.


"Animal rights"?

Somewhere I have written it before, but I can't find it right now, so I'll write it here.

I love animals, hate people who abuse them, and I don't "believe in" "animal rights".

How's that?

If "rights" are imaginary, then that's that. End of discussion.

If "rights" are a real thing, then I don't see them as transferable between species. A mouse has no right to not be tortured, killed, and eaten by a cat. A deer has no right to not be shot and eaten by a human. A dog has no right to not be kicked by its owner.

A human also has no right to not be mauled and eaten by a bear.

Any of the victims have the right to fight back however they can, killing their attacker if possible. It's just the way it works.

Any victim of another member of its own species always has the right to fight back, too. Are you listening, enforcers and freelance thugs?

Pretending otherwise will get you in all sorts of trouble, and may surprise you.

I have no right to use force to stop another human from doing anything to an animal which doesn't belong to me (or to some third party who doesn't consent to him using it that way).

I do have the right to shun and publicize what I see as disgusting behavior on the part of the abuser. I have done so in the past and will continue to do so.

Humans have the choice to cause pain and terror, or to not do so. I respect those who choose not to, and I'll avoid those I know who enjoy (or just don't care about) causing suffering. I don't trust animal abusers to stop there, but suspect it would only be a short hop to expanding their activities to human victims. Even if they don't, I think anyone who callously causes suffering isn't someone I want to be around. Not my kind of people.

You also have no ethical obligation to not eat other animals. All life is paid for by death. Don't let anyone try to make you feel bad for what you eat.  I do think the way you (or your proxy) treat your food as you kill it shows whether you are a decent person or not. You also have the right to be vegetarian or "vegan" (isn't that also the word for someone/something from Vega?) if that's what you want, but it doesn't make you superior or more moral in the slightest way.