"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive."
-- C.S. Lewis

Feel free to disagree with me () about anything on these pages. Freedom is the light of reason. The light of reason may be the only light we have in these darkening times.

I believe in personal freedom. I believe Liberty is the best possible structure for society. Liberty presumes circumscribed power of government. The power of government should be limited. In a democracy, that puts a limit on the will of the majority. Society must have a clear understanding of individual rights, express or implied. The recognition of individual rights results of liberty.

Culture is the sum of traditional ways people live life. Ideas about the structure and meaning of life are important to people. People draw strength from those ideas. Social change is always against the will of the people.

You see, social change is hazardous. Necessarily, such change requires substituting an untried system for what is working now. It takes political power to force change in social tradition, and this degree of social change is a source of political power. People will eventually accept they ought to be forced to conform to social change. Dislocating the present allows whoever is poised for change to take advantage of it.

What is the use of unlimited government right? The Mutant American Left claims that is the purpose of the American Bill of Rights. Acording to them, the Billof Rights is a statement of government power, not a limit to that power. According to these "Liberals," government has the power to run roughshod over anyone in the way of "progress." (Thus the other name of the Mutant American Liberal: The "Progressive.")

But unlimited government power is only the power to oppress, not progress. This is why the Neo-Left brook no discussion and do not tolerate opposition. These Leftists are at war with humanity; the New Left is intolerant of tradition. Seen in this light, even Communism or Nazism are merely competing forms of oppression. They are rivals in the attempt to extinguish human freedom. In the late twentieth century we can add Mutant American Liberalism.

Even Google is censoring their search engine results. Some politically conservative webpages, or pages dealing in democracy, especially in Chinese, don't get listed in Google search results. Neo-Leftist (and very rich) Google joined the mutant-liberal thought police. They tell you only what they want you to hear. This is the worst thing in Neo-Leftist "liberalism." Facts are distorted and changed by the mighty.

Truth is subverted for political power.

The socialist system always changes society to try to provide for all from the means of all. That is, all production gets shared, no matter who produced what or how much personal effort was required. At first blush, this doesn't look fair so much as it looks to be humane.

Ordinary motivations, traditional motivations, are personal. You work because you get paid, you defer immediate gratification in order to save for the future (which means you invest in the future), you practice thrift to conserve your own resources.

Under socialism, there are no personal motivations except survival. You do your work, since otherwise you must be punished in order to force you to conform. Savings are interpreted as you have too much and your extra can be safely removed from you and donated to someone else. Thrift and conservation disappear.

The primary virtue in the free society is to maximize personal freedom; the capitalist economic system will compel you to serve others in order to get them to pay you. So the free society is somewhat balanced by the capitalist system -- You can have all the freedom you want as long as you can pay your way.

The socialist system is not this way. Socialism offers basic personal survival in exchange for all personal freedom. You are not allowed to meet your own desires or needs, you must satisfy the perceived needs of the society. The state (or government) determines what the needs of society are.

Unlike free society/capitalist society, which is always in an active state of flux called liberty, and has many uses and virtues (as well as vices), the socialist society has only one virtue: Obedience to authority. The individual person does not matter -- the individual must bow to society -- only class and society matter. Thus there is no such thing as individual right in socialism.

Thus all socialist societies will persist only as long as they are transitioning to socialism. As soon as they arrive, the individual right disappears and they become authoritarian, that is they become elitist driven. The elites insist on obedience and the individual must conform in order to survive. Sounds like the European model of feudalism.

What a desirable, lovely outcome, no?

Some Democrats say tax hikes increase wealth. That must be a joke.

What do you think? If you are a taxpayer, and the taxman takes half of what you earn, you will; A. Work even harder to make more so you can have as much as before, B. Just Forget It: you are already working real hard and now they take away half of what you make.

In the real world, B. is what happens. Tough, isn't it. In the real world, tax hikes make people work less which makes them earn less. When people work less, the economy produces less. When people earn less, there is less to tax. Tax hikes reduce income to government and ransack economic production: Less tax revenue and a “bonus” crippling the economy. Tax hikes are stupid.

Wanna keep the Depression going? Just add more tax hikes.

Top

The Democratic Party's machine politics doesn't want equality for the people: They want uniformity. This is the Militarizing of the Left.

The Mutant American Liberal Left seeks complete restructuring of American society, according to the leftist principle of complete government control of every detail in the business of life. Naturally the Left want to correct the failing they see in society around them. Why would someone get into politics if they didn't want to make things work their way? Danger arises when the Left wish to impose their vision of "social good" by force.

The principle element of the current Leftist plan for America is silencing the opposition. The Left brooks No Debate; theirs is the "politically correct" way and no other. Reflect on what that phrase means. Every other approach is inherently politically incorrect, and the Left thinks it can be ignored from the start. Why suffer debate if you know the answer from the outset?

"Violence does not and cannot flourish by itself; it is inevitably intertwined with lying."

Alexandr Solzhenitsyn

Gun Control and Life

The gun control crowd is talking about a total ban of all firearms. Gun control is taking a stupid turn.  They want us to forget how easily guns can be made.  There is not something magical to limit making guns.   Guns were manufactured in Europe at least 700 years ago.   Modern firearms have been around in pretty much their present form for more than 140 years.  The first full automatic assault rifle was developed in about 1895, although its military value wasn't recognized at that time.   Any reasonably well equipped basement workshop can make any sort of firearm there is.  Tribesmen in the Khyber Pass (that's between Afghanistan and Pakistan), working with little more than a metal file and a truck axle, can make the much feared AK-47 assault rifle.

Organizations which need firearms will continue to get them.  Criminals, especially organized crime, will continue to get guns.   If gangsters can't buy them, they can make them, easily.  And don't think that there won't be criminal workshops making guns to supply the criminal trade.  A gun ban will only ensure that the criminals are armed.

Ah, you say, what about your neighbor who won't be able to menace the neighborhood because he has no access to guns?  Are you stupid?  I would much rather trust my neighbor, whom I know, than some gangster who I can't tell.  Perhaps you don't know your neighbor.  That is because you are cold, aloof and arrogant.  I hope my neighbor is well armed and there are no laws to prevent him from protecting me.

And the truth is that the facts support this idea that an armed society is a better society.  If everyone has equal access to arms, then everyone is more polite.  If guns horrify you because they make it easy to kill someone, remember that every criminal, every predatory human knows the same thing.  Guns make it easy for the innocent to stop the predator.  A frail, elderly grandmother can stop the 300 pound thug with her index finger, if she has a gun.   I know that killing a human being is not emotionally easy to do.  I know that society needs to investigate every murder to see if it is necessary.  But society should never take away the right of self defense.  If anything, society should support those who have had to defend themselves, instead of vilifying them as “gun nuts.”

The power to take life is not a light thing.  When everyone understands that life is fragile, then they will understand that life is valuable.  Innocent life is the most valuable.  The awesome power to take life, to kill in defense of innocence, is the power to understand the true value of life.

"I do not think the government should cut off the right to bear arms. My position for many years has been that just as a motorist must have a license, a gun owner should be required to have one as well. Anyone wanting to own a gun should have to pass a written exam that shows that they know how to use a gun, that they’re intelligent enough and responsible enough to handle a gun. Should both handgun and rifle owners be licensed...we’re talking about all dangerous weapons."

- Rudy Giuliani, erstwhile presidential aspirant

Mr. Giuliani's "moderate" attitude about licensing gun owners is pretty widespread. On the surface, it makes sense to gun non-owners. Why not just regulate the gun owners a little, for public safety. After all, we license drivers.

I don't mean to tear into Mr. Guilani, but there is a problem with this position. Many gun people think that driving a car is not mentioned in the US Constitution, as is the right to be armed. Therefore drivers can be licensed. But that analysis is incomplete.

Travel (moving about) is a basic right. Freedom to move is the basic to freedom itself, just like being armed for self defense. Self defense is any type of self defense; against bad people or bad governments. Travel is integral to getting away from oppression, self defense works only when its finally time to take a stand. Licensing drivers is wrong, just as wrong as licensing gun owners.

This is the evidence. What is the result of governments licensing drivers? There is all kinds of traffic violations, so licensing doesn't stop that. There is still too many fatalities in traffic, so licensing doesn't stop that. Cars are still used for murder; it's called "vehicular homicide." Drivers are licensed only so governments can tax.

Besides, ask yourself, can you drive without a license? Accurately, you cannot drive legally. But you surely can drive as a scofflaw. As long as you draw no attention to yourself, like getting hit by a drunk driver, you will be able to drive and suffer no consequence. Now, substitute the appropriate "own a gun" for "drive a car," and you get the picture of this world where gun owners are licensed.

Licensing gun owners will be equally ineffective at stopping the wrong use of guns. The mounds of paperwork required to buy a gun in the US has not stopped one criminal. Look, criminals break the law. Its what they do. Gee whiz.

Speaking of wrong use of guns, the states which have experienced the most decline in crime has been the states which have relaxed regulation on lawful carry of a concealed gun. The direction and cause is unmistakable: Most people who want a gun do so they can be left alone by the criminals. The law-abiding people don't even want to shoot anybody. They only want to be unmolested. Leave them alone. It will make good policy.

There was a horrible tragedy in Germany:  17 people were slaughtered at a public school.  Then the gunboy shot himself.  Isn't that reason enough to ban guns?

The irony is that the German parliment just passed laws adding restriction to who can possess or carry an arm, and where they can do it.  German schools are a place where firearms cartage is forbidden, just as in the USA for scads of years.  Worked as well there as it has worked here.

I feel so safe now that brutal murderers can do their brutal murdering without significant interference from me.  No.

And I remember how many of the children used to be slaughtered every day when taking a gun to school was considered an okay activity (provided you had a good reason, like you wanted to show everyone the neat present you just got).  By the way, the daily slaughter figure in schools was zero then.  Obviously that's way too low.  Let's teach the children that guns are scary so any insecure child will feel he can intimidate others with a gun; it brings out the psychotic in them.  Good idea... let's use our official positions to reshape their innocent lives into fear paralyzed dependents on the nanny government.  Screw teaching reading and reasoning; school will become the molder of personality so children will not object to total subjection to an un-self society.  Eliminate the true inspiration of self esteem, which is self-reliance.  Instead, let us fill their little lives with mush that makes us feel well.

I hate fake security.

Support your civil right to defend yourself. Check out these websites:

	National Rifle Association - America's oldest firearms organization.		Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership - They remember!
	Second Amendment Sisters Blond, not stupid, in Massachusetts.		Sporting Shooters of Australia - The struggle against oppression "down under".
	Keep and Bear Arms - A firearms rights news site

Freedom lovers want to be left to be. As long as they bother no one else, why should anyone bother them? Live and let live. This is a basic principle of freedom.

The why isn't freedom more widespread? There must be a taste, a preference, at least for some people, to be un-free. Not to put too sharp a point on this, but isn't that a slavery? What's wrong with people?

There is a world view problem here. One view, the "traditional view," is that the individual person is the basic unit of society. All civil right (and private business) in free society is based on this and is fundamentally irreducible.

There is another world view that everyone belongs to a class. "Belongs." Here's where the similarity to slavery begins. According to this view, society is not made of individuals, and there is no individual right.

If you are alert, you already noticed the basis for freedom is also the basis for the free market (no surprise there) and indirectly, capitalism and democracy. The other world view, that of classes, is more collectivist. An extreme form of collectivism is Marxist communism, but the individual person loses his freedom long before society achieves that particular nirvana.

The depressing realization about freedom is that if people want to be left alone, then it becomes difficult to make them see when their own interest are at stake, especially if it seems that another person's freedom is under attack. Perversely, free people must band together in order to preserve their individual freedom. An attack against one person's freedom is an attack against everyone's freedom.

No one is free if any peaceable person is in chains.

home