There are two ways to approach the topic of human governments. The first approach requires belief that governments exist because of human acceptance, whereas the second approach requires belief that governments exist in spite of human acceptance. I embrace the first approach, as the second approach is fundamentally impossible. In an Einsteinian universe, a man born by no one onto a planet inhabited by no one is subject to no law. Unhampered by any external factor unnaturally limiting his behavior, he would be free to do as he wished without risk of imposing himself upon another. If we were to use a percentage to represent personal freedom (0% = holding no rights whatsoever; 100% = holding absolute self-control of all rights), this man’s freedom would be 100%.
Assume now that people begin to enter into this man’s lonely world, and subsequently find themselves subject to his free behavior. These people would likely (perhaps individually, but likely as a group) object to those behaviors negatively affecting them. The man now has an external factor seeking a limit on his behavior. He may find a number of different reasons to alter his behavior, such as the fear of retribution from his neighbors or the perceived benefits of cooperation with his neighbors. If he does relent, he has chosen to relinquish a slice of his freedom that will likely not be restored while he cooperates.
Whereas this man previously held 100% of his freedoms, his agreement to limit his behavior may leave him with only 80% intact. The force that persuaded the man to relinquish 20% of his freedoms, the collective pressure of his adversely affected neighbors, is the core of government; without an agreement by people to impose limits on individual behavior within a society, anarchy blossoms. Furthermore, without an infrastructure strong enough to enforce imposed limits, the imposition itself means little.
The adversely affected neighbors must therefore codify the limits into law and formalize a permanent body able to both garner respect for the limits and punish violations of them. When these permanent bodies are formed, those subject to them impliedly agree to relinquish more rights, freely giving to the fledgling government enforcement and punishment rights. While our fictional man had 80% of his freedoms intact prior to the formation of the government body, he is left with perhaps 60% upon agreeing to the government’s rule. Like before, he does this because he either recognizes the threat a government body could pose were he not to cooperate, or he seeks the benefit of a third party protecting him from the destructive behavior of others. And so the government grows.
As governments grow, so does their power to intrude on behaviors deemed unfit in society. Whereas small government tend to limit unacceptable public behavior, larger governments seek to control private personal freedoms. Left unchecked, a growing government will assume more and more roles in society, supplanting civilian workforces with government employees. The less a civilian population is responsible for, the fewer rights it needs to go about daily life. Likewise, the more a government is reposnsible for, stronger its monopoly on individual rights becomes.
Our Constitution serves as the check on our government, enumerating those individual rights most crucial to limiting encroachments on liberty. Our founding fathers, understanding the fatal weakness of a citizenry physically unable to protest, codified as the second right inalienable to American citizens the natural ability to resist, with arms, the unlawful acts of all others. Their intent was to give to us the right to own and operate our own defensive arms, fearing a government’s monopoly over weapons would render the population defenseless against both criminals and corrupt government action.
Upon turning eighteen, I entered into an agreement with the federal government: I would allow it to limit what I could do without punishment, and it would allow me to experience the exceptional benefits of being an American citizen. I did not, however, agree to relinquish my inalienable right to deter the harmful behaviors of others, nor did I intend to hand over to the federal government every aspect of my defense of life, limb and property.
Merely because my neighbor has freely relinquished to the government his right to defend himself does not mean that I must do the same. The Bill of Rights was intended to provide clear and convincing statements granting uncontestable rights to everyone. Sadly, it appears as though those fighting to see just one of these rights abridged will recognize their error only once the government, invulnerable to citizen protest, has begun its slow trespass onto the right to publish freely, to express criticism, or of due process of law. They may find my armed body barbaric and distateful when no threat exists, yet they ignore the possibility that the firearm in my hand is partially, and perhaps substantially, responsible for the lack of a threat.
To those intent upon detroying an inalienable rights of fellow citizens, I present this cliche: Be careful what you wish for, as you may just get it.
13 Comments
May 23rd, 2007 at 8:00 am
give me the cliffs notes version of your rant for god’s sake. i’m far to important to have to read anymore. i’ll be waiting, nose in air.
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:43 pm
www.dictionary.com can help with the larger words. I cannot help you any further than that.
May 24th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
that is true in many ways. two points then;
1) what of great britain? the citizeny, posessing on average a greater intellect and educational level that ours, enjoy the same freedoms w/o the trespass you allude to. perhaps the situation is not so simple as what the founding fathers knew. a simple stance embraced by the blind may be detrimental to our society projected forward, especially in a time when no milita made from regular civilians could ever hope to impede the progress of a modern US batallion invading their town.
2) you own no firearms.
May 24th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
1. Britian does not possess a greater level of education or intellect than the US. On the contrary, the US currently has a larger percentage of citizens with advanced college degrees than does Britian. Don’t let the spiffy accent fool you. Furthermore, the instances of violent crimes have increased since the ban on gun ownership in Britian; the increase in crime is a bad thing, but even more so is the decrease in the liberties British subjects are granted by the Parliament.
2. That’s due to my economic situation, not my freedom to purchase if I had the type of disposable cash required to purchase a nickle-plated .50 cal. Desert Eagle w/carbon fiber grips. :(
May 29th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
1) Oh joy the “Britain doesn’t have teh gUnZ so they R the betterz oFF yo!”
I guess total gun prohibition doesn’t lead to less gun crime? It’s going up fast over there, higher than in the States. Check out this link to Sky News from good old britain! It’s just one of many that come up, if you look for about 2 seconds.
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1252173,00.html
Plus overall crime in good old britain is WAY higher than over here. It doesn’t have anything to do with guns by the way, is has to do with economics, if you don’t believe me do a little search. See what the real education and crime stats are over there and it will make you think twice about how our superiors across the pond really live.
2) I own firearms.
May 31st, 2007 at 8:09 am
oh my god, i’ve been humbled. oh wait, no i was thinking about something else. since the issue being discussed is the 2nd amendment - and what it means for us today, indeed, why not veer away and discuss crime and economics (in britain even)? makes sense to me, you know, shit homey. oh wait, no, it doesn’t make sense.
how does one sound smug w/o instulting? hmm, i don’t think its possible and (truthfully) i’d much rather insult.
let’s get to the insulting.
1) good job on understanding the rigor of statistics! i can tell, you’re held in high regards . your statement, “I guess total gun prohibition doesn’t lead to less gun crime? It’s going up fast over there, higher than in the States” is sure backed by some sound evidence. … “why looky here boy, it says in words on this here page that some chaps were shot in dreary london this morning, must be anarchy over there, those stupid brits, see I WAS RIGHT.”
2) many people do, your point? - now i don’t need to rip you apart here. the blogger is a friend of mine, i made a statement because i know his situation relative to the blog. for you to say it however is meaningless.
pls respond, i’ve got nothing better than to try and make someone’s blood boil!
btw, if i happen to know you in real life, apologize to me the next time we meet.
May 31st, 2007 at 10:22 am
I will not have to resort to insults…and please even forget my last post….I’m not a smart man, Maybe I didn’t get the point I was trying to make.
You asked a very good question…
“what of great britain? the citizeny, posessing on average a greater intellect and educational level that ours, enjoy the same freedoms w/o the trespass you allude to. perhaps the situation is not so simple as what the founding fathers knew. a simple stance embraced by the blind may be detrimental to our society projected forward, especially in a time when no milita made from regular civilians could ever hope to impede the progress of a modern US batallion invading their town.”
Ok…
The al Qaeda & Iraqi militants in Iraq right now are impeding the forward progress of US Military Divisions (Divisions are larger than battalions if you didn’t know) over there as we speak. They are lightly armed and would be considered by some, to be less organized than a “militia made from regular civilians”
So I have a different view on this…I fully believe that a semi-organized, lightly armed civilian militia could easily impede the progress of a “Battalion” at the orders of our enemies both foreign or domestic and / or corrupt government / tyrannical rule.
June 5th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
i shoulda left out the “greater intellect” part. i did that to jibe h.roark who is a vile and disgusting human…. :) …. the argument stands however, the british have the same basic rights and freedoms we do w/o having their citizens stock up with mp-5’s and 100 round clips.
al qaeda are impeding divisions? to me, this means that the army is unable to progress past a certain point. and troops being dug in that such that there is a “front” in the traditional sense.
that is not the case at all. most of the US armed forces in iraq are not engaged in combat operations.
why haven’t we crushed them? i think the situation is entirely more complicated than the case of our founding fathers and their fears of tyranny.
i don’t think the army wants to lay to waste to the entire region. if they wanted to, could they? yes, and without any significant resistance. but this is not a case of tyranny where one group seeks to gain absolute power (the intent behind the 2nd amendment). no this is a delicate political situation. us forces have been trying to win over the northern iraqi forces and not kill the few million civilians in the process. 3 of the 4 northern divisions are now under command of the Iraqi Ground Forces Command (aligned with US forces). this has been a slow process, one in which our military wanted to see a successful iraqi military and they’ve been basically making it happen.
i don’t think this situation has any parallels to the intent behind the 2nd amendment. and moreover the fact remains cities/towns are not wiped off the face of the planet today because of resistance, but because of politics and the chaotically complicated world of diplomacy.
i can only wish our lives and fears were as simple as Hancock and his cohorts. they are not, and the mentalities on how to go forward dealing with them should adapt as well.
June 11th, 2007 at 9:40 pm
Ok so would you like to see the complete and total ban for US Citizens owning firearms and knives like over in the UK?
June 13th, 2007 at 5:05 am
no. do you think we should be able to buy artillery at the gun shows?
June 13th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
Do you agree with any of the below listed statements?
“You don’t need to have a gun; the police will protect you.”
“If people carry guns, there will be murders over parking spaces and neighborhood basketball games.”
“I’m a pacifist. enlightened, spiritually aware people shouldn’t own guns.”
“I’d rather be raped than have some redneck militia type try to rescue me.”
June 13th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
…and no I don’t think artillery should be sold at gun shows.
June 13th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
i own a gun. i didn’t buy it, it was given to my dad as a gift many years ago and he gave it to me. its a 1971 remington nylon 66 .22 semiauto tube fed rifle. it can hold 14 rounds. its my favorite, albeit my only gun, alot of people like the shit out of it as well.
i’ve fired many rounds through alot of varied weapons, .45 single action, 9mm - many, ruger mini 14, 12 & 20 guage, .308 winchester, bolt action .223 ruger, .40, .357, .22 pistols and a few weird ones now and then.
i don’t think i should be considered a noob, i can aim pretty good out to about 100 yards with the remington (hit a 5 inch target 1/2 times), beyond the bullets pathetic ballistic characteristics get in the way. i’ve not had a chance to use a higher powered rifle beyond that range.
1) no
2) no, but we shouldn’t kid ourselves either, shit would go down every now and then and the means of those provoked may have increased
3) no, except i would admire the altruistic intent behind someone who could genuinly feel like that.
4) “save me hoss”
Leave a Reply