12 steps to mind rape

The ninth circuit court has recently ruled that you can't force someone to go to a 12 step program against their will, as a condition of their release; because it is in effect forcing someone into religious indoctrination under the color of governmental authority.

For those of you who have been living in a cave since the late 60s, the 12 step idea is that addicts should admit they are out of control and surrender themselves to a higher power, asking that higher power to help them control their addiction through spiritual awakening.

These are the steps:

1. We admitted we were powerless over alcohol--that our lives had become unmanageable.

2. Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.

3. Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him.

4. Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.

5. Admitted to God, to ourselves and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.

6. Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character.

7. Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings.

8. Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.

9. Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.

10. Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted it.

11. Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God, as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out.

12. Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to alcoholics, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.

Though AA (and other 12 step programs) will say they are not religious; they do specifically refer to the "higher power" and "god, as we understand him" etc... Also, it is an explicitly proselytizing philosophy as described in step 12.

Many will even say that the "higher power" can be anything or anyone, and doesn't have to mean god; though given the content of the steps, such an assertion is ridiculous on its face.

I am a catholic man, raised in the church, gone from it for 15 years and returned by choice, because of my faith in god, and my personal experience with christ. I know the power of faith; but I also know that faith comes from within, it cannot be forced on someone. Attempting to do so is both ineffective, and I believe offensive to god (and man).

Further though, this is a greater issue than whether AA is religious or not. This is an issue of self determination and freedom of conscience; and honestly an issue of efficacy as well.

Let's address that efficacy issue first.

You can't coerce someone into any kind of therapy (which is what rehab programs are, as opposed to de-tox) and expect it to be effective.

I come from a family of alcoholics and drug addicts; and the most important things about addicts to understand are:

1. They are ALWAYS an addict, even if they get it under control

2. Their addiction is ALWAYS going to control them, for the rest of their lives. It is only when they are strong enough to fight back that they will be able to maintain control.

3. They have to WANT to maintain control for it to work, and for it to keep working. They have to want it, more than they want their addiction.

That goes for any addiction; be it alcohol, drugs, sex, or self hatred (perhaps the strongest, easiest to acquire, and hardest to kick addiction).

Now, some might make the argument that we have a duty to protect society from these peoples behavior, and that they are better off in treatment than in jail... and to some extent there is a valid point there (assuming we are in fact punishing and preventing BEHAVIOR, not morality), but it presumes that treatment is an effective means of accomplishing this goal.

I wont say that treatment doesn't work. I have friends and family members whose lives have been saved with the help of treatment programs; and I'm convinced without that help, they would be dead. It can work for some, IF THEY ARE READY AND WILLING.

The best estimates (and they are very sketchy estimates indeed; complied by epidemiologists, and addiction psychologists from public patient records and sample interviews) on the success of ALL treatment programs, be they secular, non-secular, inpatient, outpatient, whatever; is about 10% on the first try.

Yes, there is a 90% relapse rate; and I'm not talking about slipping and having a drink or a toke. 90% of addicts who enter a recovery program return to an addict lifestyle for an extended period of time.

It's about 50% on the second try. Generally speaking, if someone collapses back, and then manages the will to go again, they mean it this time; and they do well.

The relapse rate climbs back to about 65% by the third try, and if they haven't got it by then, the numbers fall off dramatically, to the point where someone in their 4th or 5th visit to rehab has nearly a 100% relapse rate.

The funny thing is, these numbers also hold true for people who try to quit on their own without treatment. About 90% fail the first time, 50% the second time, and returns diminish from there.

This isn't to say that treatment is completely ineffective, or no more effective than recovery without treatment. Most addicts don't have the will to do it by themselves, without the support structure of treatment; and even the very strong have weak moments, where that support can help them avoid relapse.

Also, often people come to treatment and succeed in it, after trying and failing on their own several times; because the structure of treatment helped them as above.

That means that though the percentages are the same, the absolute numbers of successful treatment from a program vs self guided, are much higher.

What's most telling though, is that these numbers seem to hold true, no matter what the treatment technique, no matter who's doing the treatment; because treatment isn't about the program, it's about the addict.

Let me say that one more time: success in controlling addiction isn't about the program, it's about the addict.

Now, back to the more important question,the morality of forced treatment.

I will make a blunt and harsh statement here that may offend some: Coercing someone into changing their very thoughts, is one step away from rape; and I mean no hyperbole in that.

If one must successfully complete a treatment program (or in fact any kind of therapy, indoctrination, or "thought modification" program) to remain free; and a part of the program forces you to do, say, or support that which you do not believe in; that is simply wrong. The state should not be in the business of policing thought. We MUST have freedom of conscience, as free people.

That said, if someone is given a sobriety order (which I think is very rarely justified, but that's another argument entirely) and they violate it; back in jail they go. I have no problem with that. That is a behavioral remedy, and requiring people modify their behavior to avoid harming those around them (presuming that is the true purpose, rather than the belief that substance abuse is immoral) is a fundamental part of civilized society.

The remedies of our justice system MUST only be behavioral; once law dictates conscience, we are nothing but slaves. One must hope that through behavioral remedies we can aid people in coming to a less harmful thought pattern and lifestyle, but we cannot force them to think or feel as we wish.

So, I have no problem with a court ordered de-tox, or court ordered and enforced sobriety (including returning them to prison as a penalty) under appropriate circumstances; and if someone VOLUNTARILY wishes to enter treatment to prevent that from happening, I'm all for it. Ordering someone into therapy though, is both ineffective, and a violation of the fundamental human right of freedom of conscience.

We may want people to change, we may even require them to change their behavior, or be punished; but we cant force them to change their thoughts and feelings. It is, at it's core, mind rape; any way you care to justify it.

It's not about race...

... it’s about class, culture, and civilization, and it's about feedback… or rather the fundamental lack thereof.

I haven't said much about Katrina, and I'm not going to say much because ... well basically everyone else has.

But this one subject we need to talk about.

Feedback: In systems/logical analyisis terms feedback is the measurement of the results of a particular action or decision set. This is distinct from other inputs, because it involvs empirical evaluation of results of prior actions.

In a regulated system, there are several different mechanisms for acting on feedback, the most basic categories of which are referred to as "bang-bang", and "Proportional response".

In a bang-bang system, you are always either full on, or full off, with no throttling. You attempt to reach an acceptable average behavior in the system by setting reasonable tolerances, and than averaging out the time spent below and above the median.

In a proportional system, more complex measurements are required, because the aim of the system is to present a response proportional to the deviation from the median, and thus damp out the oscilations inherent in a bang-bang system.

In realtively simple systems like home heating, bang bang is considered fine enough control; but the more complex a system gets, the more complex it's controls must get to achieve the desired results.

Now there are two types of feedback. Negative feedback tells you that you have gone outside your boundary conditions (turn around, slow down, stop), and positive feedback tells you you need to move more towards them (speed up).

Negative feedback is the only type of feedback in bang-bang systems, and it is the easist feedback to implement, as well as the most effective in producing large results. Too much negative feedback however tends to result in wild oscilations of the system, and it's eventual failure.

Positive feedback is necessary for proportional systems to function, however too much positive feedback will also result in out of control systems as they quickly exceed their bounday conditions and fail.

There is actually a third type of feedback useful in more advanced systems known as steady state feedback (it's actually a variant of positive feedback), but that's out of the scope of this discussion.

Now, feedback has the same meaning, in a very different, but related field of systems analysis called Game Theory.

Game theory is the study of optimal decision sets. The object of game theory is to analyze what decisions will produce optimal results for a given situation. Often this is logically represented as a game, thus "game theory"... but game theory applies to MANY situations; and absolutely critical to game theory is the concept of feedback.

Let me illustrate. The classic game theory construct is called "The Prisoners Dilemma", illustrated like this (I'll jsut cut and paste, because it's a standard example used by everyone):

The classical prisoner's dilemma (PD) is as follows:

Two suspects A, B are arrested by the police. The police have insufficient evidence for a conviction, and having separated both prisoners, visit each of them and offer the same deal: if one testifies for the prosecution (turns King's Evidence) against the other and the other remains silent, the silent accomplice receives the full 10-year sentence and the betrayer goes free. If both stay silent, the police can only give both prisoners 6 months for a minor charge. If both betray each other, they receive a 2-year sentence each.

It can be summarised thus:

	Prisoner A Stays Silent	Prisoner A Betrays
Prisoner B Stays Silent	Both serve six months	Prisoner B serves ten years; Prisoner A goes free
Prisoner B Betrays	Prisoner A serves ten years; Prisoner B goes free	Both serve two years

Now, in the prisoners dilemma, there are a few sets of assumptions you need to make to play the game. The first, is that every player is trying to minimize their negative result (imprisonment), and maximize their positive result (freedom). The second, is that every player should understand that all the other players are attempting to reach the same result set.

In the first eample, let's assume you are each playing in isolation, with no way of knowing what the other players choice is before the end of the game.

Now, in a single instance of this game, the optimal choice may LOOK like ratting out the other player... but that looks like the optimal result to the other player as well so he would likely choose that and you BOTH serve two years; the second most negative result for each player.

The optimal decision set here is that both players stay silent, and thus both end up doing six months, which is the second most positive result for each player.

The problem is, you can't necessarily count on the other player to keep his mouth shut. He may jsut go for main chance, and hope he goes free (and you get screwed).

If you think he's going to do that, your optimal decision IS to talk.

So how do you make that decision?

Feedback.

Let us say that you are both in the same room and can hear each others decisions.. and look in each others faces when the options are presented to you. You're getting feedback from the other player, even if they dont say a word, and then after they DO you get more feedback, thus can potentially alter your choice; which will tend to produce closer to optimal results.

That's a bang-bang system right there BTW. No proportionality of response, either shut up or talk; and hope the result is closest to optimal.

Now lets say you run this game ten times with the same player. both in isolation again, and the one who spends the least amount of time in prison wins.

How do you decide how to play?

You could always be "the good guy", and not talk; in which case every time your opponent talked (and he would talk every time once he figures out you're "the good guy") he would go free and you'd do ten years.

You could be "the bad guy", in which case you just talked every time, and pretty quickly your opponent would figure out what you were doing, and you'd both spend 2 years

Finally, you can play "Tit for tat". In tit for tat, you start by making the decision set most likely to be optimal for all players, then after each iteration of the game you do to your opponent exactly what he did to you the last time. You give him "tit for tat".

Eventually, your opponent should figure out that you are going to hit him back with whatever he hits you with, and therefore he will over time choose the decision set that produces the optimal result for both players.

This is the concept of feedback memory, or stateful memory. You retain information about (at least) the current state of the system, the last state of the system, and the starting state of the system; and the decision set that made you reach this point.

The more times you play, the more collective feedback you recieve about a player; until in theory, you should always have the same result every time you play. You both end up doing six months each time; and it becomes clear that "Tit for tat" is the optimal decision strategy.

But critical to this assumption, is that you are recieving good feedback in response to your actions. If you don't know what the consequences of your choices and actions were, you cannot judge how best to make your next choice.

And that is the problem we face in society today. Certain groups within our society are attempting to make it entirely free of negative feedback. They wish to create a consequence free society with regards to our personal interactions.

But without negative feedback, a system will either remain the same, or accellerate out of control.

Worse, they also want to create a MEMORY free society, or in game terms they want us to create a steless society (would that were true in political terms).

Essentially they want us all to play the prisoners dilemma with out lives, but they don't want us to be able to play "tit for tat".

The chaos in New Orleans is a vivid and appalling example of what happens when social feedback is distorted by the actions of the state.

Okay so how can I possibly be reducing these people lives (and deaths) to game theory?

Quite simple really: The underclass of New Orleans (which comprises more than half the city) has had much of the feedback removed from their decision set evaluation, because of governement "assistance". Their poor choices (for whatever reason they made them, and I'm not talking about reasons I'm talking about consequences) did not have the proper proportionality of negative result, and therefore the poor choices were made more often. As these poor choices require far less effort than do good choices, out of proportion with the positive results produced by good choices; objectively poor choices were moved closer to the optimal decision set.

Without a proportionality of negative feedback, the second most negative choice can easily appear to be the second most positive choice.

Okay translating into the real world, what does this mean?

Andy and Barbara are Boyfriend and girlfriend. So are Charlie and Donna.

Charlie and Donna get married, and have a child together. Charlie has to work two jobs to support his wife and child, who aren't living very well. Charlie is tired all the time, and Donna doesn't see him very often, and neither does the baby. When Charlie isn't working, he's taking care of the baby and Donna is off working as well. Because of all their hard work, they are all well fed, the baby is being properly taken care of, and they are building some savings.

Andy and Barabara also have a baby, but they don't get married. Barbara goes on welfare, and gets a publicly subsidised apartment. She doesnt work because she would lose her welfare and subsidised apartment. Andy works, but not very hard, because if he works too much then the government takes it away from him to pay back the welfare Barbara is getting. Barabara IS able to stay home with the child, and they are all well fed because of the food subsidies she recieves. They have no savings, and no advancement from this position; and eventually the welfare will run out, but if they put themselves in a better position for when that happens, they will lose the welfare anyway. Plus, they'd both be tired all the time, and they wouldnt get to have any fun.

In a natural system (without government distortion), decision set A-B (andy Barbara) would result in Barbara and the baby starving to death, and Andy going and impregnating some other woman to start the cycle over again.

This would result in the eventual destruction of our society, as no one still alive in it would be willing to breed.

Actually, the more likely result is that all three individuals in the A-B decision set would become criminals.

In the government distorted system, the worst possible decision set, is spared the worst possible result, instead given a marginally acceptable result. ou keep doing that, and there will be a percentage of folks who find that suboptimal result acceptable, and will live in that manner.

But what happens when the government money shuts off?

New Orleans happens

Nothing More, Nothing Less

In a comment on another blog, someone said "I don't see why people need submachine guns" and "I don't see why anyone needs an arsenal"...

Heres the thing; you don't need to see why someone could have "an arsenal" or a sub-machine gun, because limitations on rights aren't about justifying why I should be able to do something, they are about you justifying why I shouldnt.

Oh and what exactly is "an arsenal" (no I dont want to get into the legal definition, I know it already, I'm talking about what the anti-gunners think an arsenal is)? One man can only shoot one gun at a time, how is it more dangerous that they have several? How is it more dangerous that someone has a lot of ammunition?

Disregarding that as the irrelevancy it is, why should a law abiding individual be treated like a criminal because his possesions could be used in an unlawful way?

The last time an automatic weapon (which is what a Sub-machine gun is) was generally avialable to the civilians outside of law enforcement was 1934. Since the passage of the National Firearms act of 1934 there have been extremely strict restrrictions as to who can buy or own an automatic weapon of any kind. ALL Firearms, from single shot to fully automatic, were restricted even further with the gun Control Act of 1968 (conventionally known as NFA and GCA'68 respectively).

Most new machine guns of any kind were banned in 1986, and the rest were banned by 1994 (actually back-banning items that were already here before '86, but somehow missed being banned before), except for the most strictly limited purposes... or of course for the military and law enforcement.

You can still own the machine guns made before '86, but you have to go throuh a 1 year FBI investigation and background check as well as a background check and approval from your local senior law enforcement official (police chief or sherrif generally).

Again, this is true unless you are in law enforcement. Ironically, since 1934 there has only been one murder commited with a legally owned machine gun, and it was a police officer who used a department owned weapon to kill his wife.

Stepping away from automatic weapons, the department of Justice estimates that approximately 70 million people legally own firearms in this country, out of a population of 295 million. Of those, one in 140,000 will commit a crime with that legally owned firearm.

1 in 140,000.

Almost all crimes commited with firearms are commited by prior felons who have been banned from owning firearms since 1968 federally, and in most states long before that.

Of all fatal shootings, at least 25%, and some estimate as much as 40% are one criminal killing another. Another notable statistic, 50% of all deaths from gunshot wounds are suicides (or more, considering some are reported as accidental). Further restriction of guns isn't going to change the number of deaths here, it will jsut change the means; actually it probably wont even do that, because in many states it is FAR easier to purchase a gun illegally than legally. I can go jsut about anywhere in this country and get a gun for $100 in an hour.

Restricing legal gun ownership wont in any way change these problems; putting people who commit crimes with guns in jail will.

Justifying gun restrictions "for the greater good" is nothing but illogical rhetoric.

Thats just like saying that because 44.5% of all prisoners are black, and 28.5% of all black men in America will spend some time in prison, that black men are a menace and should be locked up.

Sure, not all black men are criminals, but given the percentage, isn't it worth doing, for the greater good of society?

(statistics from human rights watch)

Please note again, the percentage of law abiding gun owners who commit crimes with those legally owned guns is ridiculously small. 1 in 140,000 is .0007%, and amounts to about 500 actual criminal acts performed per year with legally owned guns out of the 70 million owners of 200 million or so legally owned guns in this country.

Guns don't make people into criminals, nor do they make them more likely to be criminals. A gun is a tool, a piece of metal, an inanimate object. Guns have no inherent danger; the danger is in the intent (or negligence) of the user.

Those who would restrict, or ban guns are simply saying that no-one but the state is responsible enough, or adult enough to own a gun. They are convinced that guns are the cause of crime, and that they must be controlled by the government. This is risible on it's face. If you subscribe to this logic, let me point you to this:

Sensible Penis Control

What guns ARE to those who would misuse them, or who would ban them, is a symbol. To the immature and criminal, they are a symbol of power. To hoplophobes (people who are afraid of weapons), they are a symbol of hate, and fear, and evil.

But neither of these is a rational evaluation. Symbology is not reality.

Guns are tools which allow you to extend your reach and power. They allow the weak to defend themselves against the strong. They are a fine mechanical instrument, and skill in them is personally gratifying.

Used rationally, and responsibly, a gun is far less dangerous than common houshold chemicals, or your car (both of which kill far more people every year than guns do, especially if you factor out suicides, who will find a way to die whether they have a gun or not, and even more so criminals killing criminals).

People who want to ban, or restrict gun ownership are actually saying they dont believe that people are capable of being rational and responsible.

Of course they dont see it that way, they see themselves as "helping to reduce the danger", but this is completely facetious. The danger exists in mens hearts, and minds, not in a piece of steel.

All they are doing is assuaging their emotions; fear, doubt, and irresponsibility.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Oaths

"I, Christopher Byrne, having been appointed a 2d Lt. in the United States Air Force do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter, SO HELP ME GOD."

I took that oath almost nine years ago, and the enlisted mans oath two years before that; and though I don't wear the uniform anymore, I have not renounced that oath. I consider it to still be in force (and so does the government by the way, if I recieve a lawful order from my properly constituted chain of command, I am still legally required to obey it.)

I repeat it to myself on the 4th of July, Veterans Day, and Memorial Day.

It means something; something more than I can ever explain.

The framers pledged "their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor", and I have pledged no less.

If you haven't taken the oath, I don't think you can understand; It is both a heavy weight, and a sturdy frame. When you take the oath, if you really understand it, you know it means you have accepted a duty, more important than any other you have taken before, to protect those around you; even more than that, you have taken on a duty to protect our principles, and our way of life. It also means that you know, truly know with absolute certainty, what you should do when presented with certain very critical questions.

"...I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same..."

All enemies foreign and domestic...

That passage is there for a reason; The framers of our government, who first set forth this oath in 1778, knew that there would be challenges both from within, and from without.

I believe that in these days, we face a greater challenge from within, than we have faced since April, 1861.

The people who have become the establishment of the state, have taken upon themselves more and more of those powers, rights, and priviliges reserved for the states; and for the people; and they are reaching for more every single day.

They have taken upon themselves the power to limit, or to abrogate those rights protected by the constitution.

They have taken upon themselves the power to limit, or to abrogate those rights inherent to us as men.

And we have let them.

It is my duty to support and defend the constitution of the united states, and I have failed in that duty.

If you are reading this, it's very likely you have failed as well.

Every elected official in the federal government has taken a similar oath.
Every federal law enforcement officer has taken a similar oath.
Most state governors have taken a similar oath
Most elected officials in state governments have taken a similar oath.
Most Police officers have taken a similar oath.
Many appointed officials of federal and state governments have taken a similar oath.
Many officials of state and local governments have taken a similar oath.

They have failed their duty, and they have forfeited their honor.

We have all failed, because we have allowed our government to supersede our nation, and our constitution. We have failed because we are not doing everything in our power to reverse these transgressions. We have failed beacuse we have supported, and promoted these transgressions when they serve our own petty interests.

We have failed because we have known what had to be done, and we have not done it.

We have failed, because we are weak, because we are human, and because we have not stood together in our duty.

We have failed in our duty, and in failing we have forfeited our honor.

We have forfeited our honor, because our friends, and our neighbors, and our families all accepted that it was allowable to do so.

We have forfeited our honor because it was easy, and our duty was hard.

I wish to have my honor back.

I wish to do my duty.

I am weak, but I will be strong.

I am alone, but I will not be alone long.

We are weak, but we will be strong.

Let me say this again, loud and clear:

WE WILL BE STRONG

WE WILL DO OUR DUTY

WE WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND OUR CONSTITUTION
AGAINST ALL ENEMIES FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC

A Citizen or a Subject

What is the difference between a citizen, and a subject?

Very simple. A citizen has rights, a subject has privileges.

Some believe that one can be free in a monarchy, if the laws are structured properly. That in fact, their societies can be more free than more democratic ones, because the head of state can overrule any law that would violate the freedoms of the people.

Others believe that since no government, no matter how it is structured, can be depended upon to not vote itself more power, more money, and more control; that anarchy is the solution, and in fact only under anarchy can people be free.

I have to make it clear, both of these thoughts are entirely mistaken.

It is as sovereign individuals, participating in a free state, where we are subject to none but ourselves, but where we are citizens bound by justifiable laws, that we are most free as a people.

There is no way that anarchy can persist over time, without the weak becoming subject to the strong.

As individuals we may be more free under anarchy for a time, but as a people, the strong will dominate the weak, and our society as a whole will suffer for it, as will each individual member within it eventually. That's a second order effect that anarchists don't tend to see. They don't follow their argument to its eventual end.

There is no monarchy, even a constitutional monarchy, where the people are truly free, because they are subjects not citizens.

It all comes down to the difference between a citizen, and a subject.

Even though in the United States our government has overreached greatly, and grown into the monster it is today, we are still at core free men, different from almost all others in this world.

Taking as an example Britain; as a subject of the queen, technically speaking you don't have any rights, you have whatever privileges the queen allows you.

Though the royals haven't ruled that way since the early 19th century, and their absolute control was curtailed by the magna carta, and again after the failed republic (and the somewhat disastrous but thankfully short Stewart restoration) the freedoms of the British peoples are entirely a matter of tradition, not of law.

Britain is often referred to as a constitutional monarchy, but this isn't actually true. There is no written guarantee of either the limitation or structure of government, nor of the rights of the people.

Britain is governed according to the principle of common law, where tradition and precedent are the primary means of enforcing structure and shaping legislation; but that's all there is. The only real limitations as to what parliament can or cannot do are tradition, prior acts of parliament (which can always be changed or repealed), or the will of the crown.

Unfortunately, British subjects have had this proven over and over again in the past decade, as their traditional rights, privileges, and immunities... their basic freedoms and liberties... have been ever more curtailed in the name of the security state, the nanny state, and "crime prevention".

The British subject is under perpetual surveillance, and legally disallowed from defending or protecting themselves to the point that they are no longer speaking of gun control, but KNIFE control.

Americas governmental structure is radically different. In America we have a constitution which defines the form and structure of our government, and (at least in theory) very strictly limits how that government can restrict our liberty as free men. The constitution itself makes explicitly clear that the governments powers are limited, and that power rests in the people.

We are not subject to anything, or anyone but ourselves, as free sovereign men.

As free men, we have no obligation to comply with laws, or regulations that are unconstitutional.

Sure, there are situations where folks disagree (or pretend to disagree) about what the constitution says, or how it says it, or what it means.

Here's the thing: Nuance and subtlety are not in the language of the constitution.

Let me say this again, there is no nuance in the language of constitution. If you think there is, read the federalist papers for reinforcement. The constitution was written quite plainly.

There is without a doubt both subtle and profound genius in the concepts of the constitution, but it's only because it is written in 18th century high cant that anyone can legitimately see any ambiguity.

Again read up, you'll figure it out.

Of course lots of folks pretend, or convince themselves there's real ambiguity, but they are either mistaken or they are lying.

Oh and the spot in the constitution that says we shouldn't follow any laws that are not explicitly authorized by the constitution?

Well you can't get more explicit than the 10th amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Not surprisingly, that ones not too popular among legislators, liberals, or far right conservatives, because it very clearly states they aren't allowed to make any law they want to.

The government cannot under any circumstances make law that is unconstitutional. If they do so, that law is not legal, valid, or binding.

In most countries, you are only allowed to do what the government lets you. Almost all countries in the world other than the U.S. are like this (even Australia, the second freest country in the world).

In America we can do anything we like, so long as it is not specifically limited by the government, and the government can only restrict us in ways that are in the constitution.

That's a pretty radical concept. When it was first instituted, it had never actually been tried before. In fact everyone predicted it would fail quite spectacularly.

Instead, some 240 years later (I'm from Boston, we remember the revolution started on April 19th 1775, not July 4th 1776), we have the most stable and long lasting government since the roman empire.

Of course the government has taken upon itself to intrude, and to regulate, far more than the constitution explicitly allows, both for good and for ill.

The vast majority of federal law and regulations flow from a few basic statements in the constitution, which I'll paraphrase here: The federal government has the authority to promote the general welfare, secure the peace, negotiate with foreign powers, make war, ensure the full faith and credit of articles (licenses, marriages etc...) between the states, to resolve disputes between the states, and to promote and regulate interstate commerce.

The problem mainly lies with that last one, promoting and regulating interstate commerce. It's a pretty vague clause, and it can (and has) be stretched to encompass almost anything. This isn't really in the constitution as such, but if a judge allows it...

As our government was conceived, the states were, for most purposes, their own independent entities. The states had all the power to tax, and control of all laws and jurisdictions within their states, except in matters that would conflict with other states, or with the constitution. The federal government had EXTREMELY limited power and authority.

Even up until the early 20th century, the average citizen in America would have no contact or interaction with the federal government in any way, for their entire lives, except perhaps through the military, or during wartime.

Unfortunately, as a result of the growing tensions between the states, and several wars, there were a series of rulings by the supreme court in the 19th and through the early 20th centuries, which were very questionable as to their constitutionality, but very clear in their intent to grant the federal government ever increasing authority and control.

During and just after the civil war the president, and the out of control congress, did many things that were blatantly unconstitutional. They also packed the supreme court with justices that would allow them to do so. Or the simply ignored, or didn't allow to go to court, issues they didn't like. After restoration things calmed down significantly (though not back to where they were before).

It wasn't until World War 1 that the federal government laid any sort of regular permanent direct tax on citizens. In fact their authority to lay this tax was successfully challenged (several times), and they had to pass a constitutional amendment to get the right to re-institute it.

The last straw for our original intended system of federal government was Franklin Roosevelt, who used the circumstances of the great depression to multiply the size, and power, of the government by quite literally a factor of 10. Before 1934 most people never heard or saw the feds in their entire lives, afterwards, the feds became the dominant force of government, eventually relegating the states to near irrelevance.

This continued apace through the second world war, then Korea, and into the 60's; until by the time Lyndon Johnson was done, the federal government was over 20 times the size it had been before 1934, for a less than doubled population. In this same time frame, the number of federal laws and regulations expanded to over 1000 times what they had been before 1934.

Almost all of these things were in fact unconstitutional, but they were done while the country was reeling through 40 years of continuous crises; from the great depression through the cold war.

Anyone who challenged the government during this time was totally marginalized as a kook, or their point was acknowledged and ignored because "these things have to be done for <-- data-blogger-escaped---="--" data-blogger-escaped-crisis="crisis" data-blogger-escaped-day="day" data-blogger-escaped-here="here" data-blogger-escaped-insert="insert" data-blogger-escaped-of="of" data-blogger-escaped-the="the">".

By the time anyone thought to mount serious challenges, there was a huge bulwark of time and precedent surrounding the changes, and we've been trying to chip it down ever since. 

Anyone who has protested too vigorously has been declared crazy, made into a criminal, been harassed, or even been killed (Randy Weaver was a racist ass, but he was deliberately targeted for being anti-government, and what they did to his family is wrong in every way).

Meanwhile the sheep continue to munch away... but even with all this intrusion, we are still free men, subject to none but ourselves.

A very graphic, and simple illustration of the structural differences between America and Great Britain, and what it means, to be free, and not be a subject:

In America all elected officials, and all military officers and enlisted men swear an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the United States. They do not swear to the president, or even to the constitution. They swear, to THEMSELVES, and to their fellow men, that they will uphold the constitution.

In Great Britain elected officials and military officers serve at the pleasure of her majesty, and officers commissions are granted by her majesty. Each man swears his oath to the sovereign, who he is subject to. He is not a free man, but a subject.

All prison sentences and court decisions are at her majesties pleasure as well. The final recourse of justice is in all cases a petition of right, which supersedes all courts, where one directly appeals to her majesty for a decision, and that decision has the force of law.

So here's where we stand. The British, most liberals, anarchists, and some conservatives seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding, and make some improper assumptions about American government.

The British are subjects. They have been raised as subjects, and do not perceive how any government can be any other way. They are bewildered by our talk of unconstitutional law, and limitation of government, or of the thought of disobeying the law not being wrong, or not being a crime.

So are many liberals. They have the mentality of subjects.

Anarchists believe that one cannot have any government without being a subject.

We are not subjects, we are citizens. We do not have privileges granted us by the government, we have rights inherent to our nature as men.

A subject is required to obey all laws propagated by those he is subject to. A citizen is able, and perhaps morally required to disobey, and in fact to actively resist, all laws that infringe against his fundamental rights.

A subject is raised to believe that government is ultimately in power. A citizen knows that it is himself, and his fellow men, who are in power; he is answerable to none but his own soul.

Liberals want us all to be subjects. I wish to remain a citizen, and I will die before I am made a subject.

From the declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. 

--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. 

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
...
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Rights, Penumbras, and Emanations

Let's talk about the difference between rights and priviliges.

I happen to be of the opinion that this distinction is quite simple: A privilege is something which is granted, a right is something that is inherent to a man by virtue of his existence.

The problem is, lots of people don't understand what a right is. Their heads are filled with, in the words of various constitutional scholars; "the vague penumbras and emanations of the government and the judiciary".

Rights are not granted by the government, or constitution, they are inherent to man.

Fundamentally, there are two types of what people call rights: Inherent rights, and constructed rights.

Inherent rights are those rights we posess by virtue of being sentient beings; constructed rights, are all other things, taken as rights, which are not inherent rights. They are rights by law, but not by nature

For example, inherent rights would include, among others:

• The right to not be attacked or killed out of hand by your fellow man.
• The right to own and hold property
• The right to defend ones life and ones property against others.
• The right to determine the course of ones life through free choice
• The right to be judged fairly by ones actions(that ones a bit fuzzy)
• The right to think those thoughts that you wish to think
• The right to speak those words that you wish to speak; presuming they are not, in effect, actions infringing the rights of others.

Inherent rights cannot be taken, or limited; but by force, or willing consent.

Constructed rights would include the right to privacy, the right to vote, the right to marry (civily), and others.

While the articles of the U.S. constitution define the form, and structure of our government; the first ten amendments (and most of the rest of them) are primarily concerned with the strict limitation of how government may limit, administer, or restrict inherent rights.

When it comes to the constitution, I am pretty much a strict constructionist; a group of people who for the most part do not believe in constructed rights (yes I know that sounds wrong, but trust me, its correct).

A constructed right is a right by consent or by consensus, not by inherence, and therefore is not truly a right, but a construct of the society in which one lives. It may be limited or removed by legislative action, or the will of that society at any time. That's not a right, it's a privilege.

Most of the time we recognize this principle directly in law e.g. It is always lawful for someone to defend themselves against attack. It is not lawful in most states for felons to vote. This is because voting is a constructed right that can be limited or removed without force or consent, but self defense is inherent, and cannot be limited.

Lets muddy the waters even further...

There is a compelling constructionist argument that voting IS an inherent right, because in a society such as ours, voting is an inseperable component of the right of self determination.

There are also compelling arguments that privacy rights are in fact inherent rights; as an extension of property, and self determination rights.

Rough ones those.

I contend that the rise of the valuation of constructed rights, is essential to the core value of collectivism, and the single greatest cause for the decline in personal and moral responsibility that has occurred in our society since the mid 1960’s.

Constructed rights like voting, fair housing, health care (lord knows why people think thats a right) etc.., have become the "rights" that many people value, while they no longer believe in their basic property rights, or the rights to defend themselves

In allowing, and in fact encouraging people to escheat responsiblity for their own inherent rights to the sate through the practice of social welfare, the value of those rights is nullified. In fact, as long as one accepts state control over ones means of existence,and ones protection, one has no inherent rights, because one has willfully consented to their removal.

The fundamental principle of political collectivism is that the rights of the individual are subsidiary to the rights of the collective, as administered by the state. In order for this ideology of the supremacy of the state to succeed, the percieved value of inherent rights must be destroyed, to be replaced by those rights granted by fiat of the state.

Once the populace is conditioned to accept this as the natural order of things (as they have been in Europe for generations) the eventual descent into collectivism, and from there to totalitarianism seems, to me, to be inevitable.

This is not to say that constructed rights are invalid, simply that they are not truly rights; They are rights by fiat Clearly rights by fiat cannot be granted the same status as true rights in that by accepting that any core value of liberty can be created by fiat, one must also accept that it can be destroyed by it. If one accepts that, one is simply saying that rights are not, they are privileges.

Ok, so this is a hell of a lot of fancy language, on a subject that I stated above, was quite simple - and this essay is actually about half the length I originally wrote; I just cut everything extra out.

So here it is, the simple facts:

Rights cannot be taken away. No law, no regulation, no government, can take away my rights, or yours. Not only that, but no-one can limit my rights, except to prevent me from limiting others right unjustly (see my post "The Politics of liberty").

No government gave me my rights, and no government can take them away. No man gave me my rights, and no man can take them away. They are mine, and I will excercise them, and I will defend them.

The only way I will ever have my rights violated is looking down a muzzle, and let me tell anyone who would try: I'm a better shot than you, I fight dirty, and I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees.

The Politics of Liberty

Ok, so you can listen to me passionately rant this piece (and I do go off the text a bit), you can read it below, or you can read it on a plain white background with black (and some red) text here: http://www.chrisbyrne.com/writing/other/PoliticsLiberty.html

Part 1:
Part 2:
Part 3:
Part 4:

I want to talk about what I believe in.

I'm a small "l" libertarian, but a lot of people don't know what that means. In the header of this blog, I describe myself as a "disgruntled constructive anarchist". Considering that anarchists (actually anarcho-socialists) are active and in the news today in my home town of Boston, I thought it might be an opportune time to explain what I mean by that.

"I am a cynically romantic optimistic pessimist. I am neither liberal, nor conservative. I am a constructive anarchist. Basically what that means is that I believe that all things being equal, responsible adults should be able to do whatever the hell they want to do as long as no one is getting hurt who isn't paying extra"

This quote has been on the front page of my web site since 1997, and although it's more than a bit flip, it's also substantially accurate (besides, I'm more than a bit flip); Oh and I stole the last bit from Dennis Miller (good artists copy, great artists steal; from Pablo Picasso, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, and Mark Stephens in this case).

Actually, calling myself a construcive anarchist is kind of a joke, or rather a mechanism for catching your attention. People hear the word anarchist, and it tends to make them at least raise their eyebrows.

I am in fact, not an anarchist. What I call myself when I am seriously trying to classify my beliefs is something else entirely:

I am a Muscular Minarchist. I believe in an absolutely minimalist government that provides a strong defense. I want a government that stays out of my wallet, out of my bedroom, and out of my business.

I'm going to break this out into four parts. Fundamental Philosophy, Foundations of Government, What Government is NOT ,and Participation in Society.

Now down to the squishy stuff...

More in the extended entry...


Fundamental Philosophy

My beliefs on government are rooted in three core tenets.

• The coercive restraint of human liberty is inherently evil. Control of ones person, property, and behavior should be the exclusive province of the sovereign man.
• The only legitmate limitation of liberty is that which prevents transgression on the liberty of others, or which compensates those transgressed upon.
• Without a disinterested arbiter, maintaining a monopoly of legitimate force with which it resolves disputes and enforces compacts between men, the liberty of the weak will be abrogated by the will of the strong.
  

I'm gonna get down to about fourth grade level here for a bit, because I want to talk about some very fundamental stuff.

Government is only good at two things: stealing, and killing. When you boil it down, that, at core, is its job. Government enforces the rule of law through the threat of force (killing), and administers and perpetuates itself through the seizure of assets (stealing, which it achieves through the threat of force, a.k.a robbery).

See here's the thing; All earned compensation is in exchange for time out of your life. This is time that you could have used for something else... look up opportunity cost if you arent familiar with the concept.

(note for economic wonks: this is NOT the Labor Theory of Value, though it is a core element of it. LTV is a gross simplification of reality. Nor is this a refutation of Marginalism. When it comes to the value of labor, and wages, Adam smith got it mostly right but said it didn't apply, Ricardo got the concept right but the consequences entirely wrong, Karl Marx got it mostly wrong - at least partially because of Ricardo, and Ludwig Von Mises disagreed with them all so much he either ignored it or pathologically refuted it. All I am speaking of is wages, income, and opportunity costs)

You are given money in exchange for some of your time. The more commercially valuable your skills, labor, support, presence, looks, or body are, the more money you are given for that time. When you pay for goods, you are compensating those who sell the goods for their time (and opportunity costs), who are compensating the distributors for their time, who are compensating the manufacturers for their time and so on. Even when you are paying for a raw material or commodity like iron or gold what you are really paying for is the time (and opportunity cost) it took to find, and extract, and refine etc...

That's pretty basic economics, but there's an important social and political implication there. If income is taken away from you (direct taxes) time is being taken away from your life. If property, assets, or money are taken from you without compensation (indirect taxes), time is being taken away from your life. You have just spent however long it took to earn that money, or acquire those goods or assets, in involuntary servitude to the one(s) who took it.

Involuntary servitude has another name: Slavery

Yes, I'm saying that direct taxes are slavery (actually, more on that later). Indirect taxes (tarrifs, sales taxes, excise and property taxes etc...) are closer to theft, but really, this is also slavery, because it's all time out of your life, which you have in effect spent involuntarily laboring for the government without compensation.

If that isn't slavery, what is?

Many people consider this concern for property and money to be venal, trival, irrelevant, or shallow, but when you think about what money really is, time out of your life, money (or property, which is interchangeable here) takes on a different meaning. Because compensation must be made for property acquired, and all compensation is in exchange for time out of your life, property rights are fundamental to liberty.

Ok so, with me so far? I'm making some HUGE generalizations, and simplifying things more than a little bit here, I just wanted to get some principles out there before y'all start saying "you just don't like paying taxes". There's actually some philosophical foundation to this other than my irritation at not being able to buy more guns and pizza.

So, we've established how I feel about taxes, what about that other thing, the rule of law.

In an ideal society, there would be no need for any laws other than "you have to do what you say you will", "you can't take or destroy anything that isn't yours", and "you can't hurt anyone who doesnt want to be hurt", but lets face it, that aint gonna happen. A functioning society consisting of more than just family (and if it's my family... well...), must have a government.

Notice, I never say that all government is illegitmate, just evil. It is sometimes necessary to do evil things, so that other evil will not be done. Killing somone is a bad thing, but not killing someone can be a worse thing. Someone shoots and kills grandma, bad, someone shoots the guy trying to shoot grandma, good. The problem comes when government exceeds those legitimate purposes which I will describe in the next section.

Foundations of Government

So, some agency must exist to enforce those basic principles I list above if a governed society is to function.

NOTE: I am using the term agency in this document in the sense of a mechanism, process, or structure, not explicitly a beaurocracy or constructed entity, though that me be the practical result.

Let's enumerate just exactly what we need for legitmate government.

• We need a neutral arbiter for disputes. This function is served by civil courts.
  
• We need to keep people from commiting crimes (the strong harming the weak). This function is served by police.
• We need to catch people who do commit crimes, to ensure they can be punished, and that restitution can be made. This function is also served by the police.
• We need to have a system for determining who is punished, how they are punished etc.. This function is served by criminal courts.
• We must prevent those from outside our society who would harm us, and our vital interests, from doing so. This function is served by the military, and to an extent by diplomats as part of the executive office.
• There must be an agency for negotiating and concluding agreeements with other nation states in support of our vital interests. This function is served by the executive office.
  
• In the united states, or any other federal entity, there must be an agency for settling disputes between the states. This function is served by the federal courts and particularly the supreme court
• There must be a system for creating and defining legislation. A written code of laws is essential to a free society. This function is served by the legislature.
  
• There must be an agency for selecting those who are given authority by the government, whether in police, military, court, legislative, or executive roles. In our society this is served through the franchise, as adminsitered by the states, counties, and precincts.
  
• There must be the systems and infrastructure in place to enable and support these functions. This function is served by the bureaucracy of civil service.
• There are some functions which are best served through collective action, such as public works. Though much of these can be privatized, there is a legitmate claim for functions such as roads to be provided by the government, as it is not possible to perform the basic functions of government without them. When not served through private contract, these functions would also be provided through the civil service.
  

There are no other legitimate functions of government.

None.

No really, none.

Make the laws, enforce the laws, enforce contracts, settle disputes, protect the citizens, protect the country.

That's it.

Although that's a pretty short list, it's actually longer than many libertarians would agree to. As I said, I am a muscular minarchist. I think that any state without what I list above could not succeed, because it would be conquered (from within or without) by the darker demons of human nature if nothing else.

What Government IS NOT

Government is not your friend
Government is not your keeper
Government is not your master
Government is not your teacher
Government is not your creator
Government is not your babysitter
Government is not your conscience
Government is not your paymaster
Government is not your moral compass

Most importantly...

GOVERNMENT IS NOT THE SOLUTION

Societal Participation:

If a free man is to participate in society, and obtain the benefits thereof, he must acknowledge his responsibility to obey the laws of that society, and to contribute to the maintenance and support of that society. A debt is incurred for these benefits, and must be paid through service to society, both indirectly, and directly through the payment of reasonable taxes.

Service to society takes many forms. Every time you don't break the law, you are serving society in some way (as well as yourself, which in a properly constructed society should always be the case, but so often isn't). By holding productive employment you are serving society. By helping the police, executive office, legislative office, courts, and military to preform their functions, be it through working in them, voting, training, acting as a witness, or whatever other form it may take, you are serving society.

All that said, taxation is the primary direct contribution from citizens in the service of society. Taxation is necessary for a governed society to function, as there must be some means for the government to preform the functions enumerated above, all of which have direct costs, and require compensation to those who preform these essential functions.

One may say that this is internally inconsistent with my argument above, but truly it isn't.
Taxation in and of itself is not evil; as I say above, when one obtains benefit from society, one has voluntarily incurred a debt, which must be paid. What is evil (and I don't use that term lightly, or in jest), is taxation in excess of this incurred debt. This is involuntary redistribution, and it is evil in all it's forms.

Involuntary redistribution is NEVER justified under any circumstances, no matter how deserving one believes the benificary to be, or how little impact one believes it will have on the benefactor. Involuntary redistribution, is nothing more than slavery.

It doesn't matter if those whose assets are being redistributed "can afford it" or "dont need it", because you are stealing time from their lives. You are forcing them into involuntary servitude, WHICH IS SLAVERY.

So how does this fit into society today?

I am reminded every day that my ideals are just that, ideals. We live in a society, with a government that does everything that I believe legitimate government should not do.

Over the past 70 or so years (since the new deal), and especially over the past 40 years (since the great society), we have developed a culture where the abdication of personal responsiblity to the government (or it's agents) is not only accepted, but often, encouraged.

I find this fact profoundly offensive, but I also have little power to change it as an individaul.

Here's the thing: Societies are made up of many many individuals, and by changing minds one person at a time, we CAN grow back into a society of individual liberty. If I change just one mind, and in doing so inspire that person to change other minds, eventually we can, and we will free ourselves from the coercive limitation of human liberty.

This is my goal, and it is far too important to ever give up.

Subtlety and Bullshit

I have been criticized for not being subtle. For being too direct, too blunt, too aggressive and what have you.

Damn Skippy Bubba.

I can be quite subtle if I choose to be. I grew up in a family environment that required subtlety and manipulation skills par excellence just to survive.

In my work, I am often required to be subtle, and especially to be discrete. If I feel that is warranted, I certainly do so. For one, it's polite, and it only makes sense financially; If you are paying me to be nice to you, I'm going to be nice to you.

I CHOOSE to not be subtle. I choose to be direct, and blunt, and sometimes aggressive, because that's how I want to be. If that bothers you, I don't particularly care. My purpose in life is not to avoid bothering you.

I am a very confident person. I know my abilities, I know my limitations, I am absolutely certain about what I can or cannot do, and I make no bones about it.

When you combine these factors, I am often thought to be arrogant or "superior". GOOD.

I'm a damn smart cookie, and I know it. I'm physically strong and capable. I have a very broad base of experience, and a deep and useful education (both formal and personal). I have a right to be confident, and if my confidence makes you uncomfortable, that's your problem.

I don't think I'm better than everyone, but I damn well know I'm smarter, stronger, and more knowledgeable than a hell of a lot of people; If I wasn't I wouldn't be able to do my job. Why should I let the fact that you are emotionally incapable of being challenged without your fragile ego being coddled all the time cripple the way I work?

I love talking with people, exchanging ideas, debating, arguing, etc... I'll listen to you on almost anything if you are civil, or good looking. Just because I disagree with you, or know you are wrong, doesn't mean I didn't listen; It means I know you are wrong, or it isn't a matter of right or wrong, it's a matter of opinion, and my opinion is different from yours. We could have a nice debate or friendly argument about it, and maybe you'll change my mind, or I'll change yours, and hell, just the argument alone will be fun (I'm not a guy who takes other people having ideas other than mine personally) but don't expect be to respect your ideas just by virtue of you having them. If you have an idea, you damned well better be ready to vigorously defend it.

How is this arrogance? Have we completely lost the ability to distinguish arrogance from confidence and competence? Are we supposed to be unsure of ourselves at all times?

Well if you look at liberal reactions to anyone who shows any sort of certitude, that answer is apparently, yes. Some people seem to believe that NO-ONE should ever be sure they are right, and if they are they are either arrogant, evil, or stupid.

To those people I say, I'm right, you're wrong, life sucks, get a fucking helmet.

Why I carry a gun

My favorite anecdote about Bill Jordan goes something like this:

Now Ol' Bill, he was a direct man, and a big one at that, so most of the folks he put away were willing to chalk it up to "just business", and leave it at that.

Well Bill heard this feller was raisin' a stink about comin' round to get some back at him for, but he didn't think too much of it.

A few days later, Bills sittin' out there on his porch, and he's got his trademark combat magnum in his lap. His neighbor walks by and says to bill "See ya got yer pistol there Bill, you 'spectin trouble?", So says Bill "Nope, if I was expeting trouble, I'd have my rifle"

I carry a gun whenever it is legal, and not impolite for me to do so. When I am entering the home or place of business of someone I don't know, I will inform them I am armed, and ask them if they would prefer I not carry a gun while there.

It's just polite.

A lot of people ask me "Why do you carry a gun, do you expect trouble?"

No, I carry a gun not because I expect trouble, but because I can. If I was expecting trouble I'd carry a 12ga.

More in the extended entry...

The practice of carrying a weapon is a clear assertion that I am a man. By that I'm not talking about macho bullshit; By saying I am a man, I mean that I am an adult, responsible for my actions, and willing to accept the consequences of them.

When you carry a gun you have in your hands (or on your hip), the ability to end any mans life. This is a massive responsibility, second only to that of raising children.

Many people are uncomfortable with that responsiblity. They believe that they can't be trusted with it, and by extension, neither can anyone else. They fall back on saying "the police" or "the government" should take care of that. Someone with special training, and the blessings of the state should be responsible, but not me, or you, or anyone else.

I can think of no clearer way of saying "I am immature, and not to be trusted".

When I carry a gun, I accept the fact that I may kill someone. I don't ever plan on doing it, I hope it doesn't happen, but it may. I am prepared for this possiblity, and I accept the consequences should it happen.

A few months ago, I broke up with a girlfriend over this. She asked me what I would do to someone if they tried to rape her. I told her flat out that I would kill him. No hesitation there at all. She told me later that from that moment, she was afraid of me.

I asked her what she would do if someone tried to rape her. She said she wouldnt fight. "What if you had a gun, would you shoot the guy to stop it", no she wouldnt do that. "ok what if I was there and I shot him, would that be OK", no of course not. Finally I asked "What if a cop came along, and he shot the guy would that be ok" well of course, he's a cop.

That attitude frankly baffles, and disgusts me, yet there are so many people who hold it. They feel morally superior because they would never "sink to that level".

Personally I would consider that pretty clear evidence of moral bankruptcy.

The same applies to people who would never fight in a war, but are OK with soldiers and cops defending their rights. Oh, they'll protest, and march in the streets, but actually doing anything? No they're all above that and have disdain for everyone else who isn't, calling us savages, and rednecks, and barbarians etc...

I carry a gun because it is my right, and because I am responsible enough to excercise it. I feel nothing but pity or contempt for those who are not.