Monday, January 21, 2013

Are "Anti-Federalists" the New Bogeymen?

Watch out for "anti-federalists" says those at the Washington "think" tank the West Point center.

These "anti-federalists" apparently "espouse strong convictions regarding the federal government, believing it to be corrupt and tyrannical, with a natural tendency to intrude on individuals’ civil and constitutional rights. Finally, they support civil activism, individual freedoms, and self government."

Hear that? Be on the lookout for the dangerous Thomas Jefferson!


.... From "A Bill for the More General Diffusion of Knowledge" (1779).

Of course, those who really believe in civil and constitutional rights, self government and the like are always nonviolent. Governments are the violent ones: killing, stealing and dictating from on high against those they find inferior or simply in the way; failure to comply with the government agenda always ends in coercion. Those who desire liberty want to end the violence of government.

Thursday, January 10, 2013

The Political Spectrum

Some talk of "Left vs. Right" and while that divide exists physically in Washington, political philosophy is far more nuanced. Here is the best picture description of the realities of the political spectrum that I have ever come across....

.... I will say that I think the "Jeffersonian" and the "Jacksonian" labels might be on the wrong side of things; other than that, this diagram is great.

Wednesday, January 2, 2013

Gun Control = State Monopoly

Talk of gun control in the United States is stronger than ever in this brand new year of 2013. Gun Control is nothing but another more dangerous form of prohibition but it is also, on top of just being a historically bad idea, something that simply creates a dangerous monopoly against the public.

Instead of a responsible public owning guns for hunting, self-defense, etc.; only the government and the criminals will own them. That's a very dangerous monopoly; of course, it is something that some explicitly desire. Criminals certainly want a reduction in public ownership of guns (no one to shoot back) and the government wants it to better control the lives of the public. Isn't it interesting when the motives of both criminals and politicians overlap?

The line from the anti-gun group sounds inconsistent but it really is not inconsistent at all; it fits perfectly into their desired outcome. While powerful people want everyone else to be disarmed, they wouldn't dare give up their guns or gun-toting body guards. Why? NY Representative Jerrold Nadler says that the “state ought to have a monopoly on legitimate violence."

Ah yes, the government, already unfortunately deciding what kind of violence against the public is "legitimate" in the first place, should have all of the guns! What could go wrong?

If guns are to be outlawed or limited in any way, the army, police, secret service, etc. have to give up their guns too. Monopolies are bad, after all - and who honestly believes that they are safer because the army or police own guns?