"The individual is not accountable to society for his actions, insofar as these concern the interests of no person but himself." ~ John Stuart Mill
Column by Alex R. Knight III.
Exclusive to STR
Last October, a friend of mine from the People’s Republic of Marxachusetts was visiting me here on the slightly more enlightened tax-farm/slave plantation known as Vermont, and the topic of discussion turned to guns. I remarked how different the situations were between where she lived and here in that respect – how in Vermont, no licenses, permits, safety training, or other government impositions exist with respect to the ownership or carrying of firearms, including concealed carry.
“I know, isn’t that crazy?” she asked in response – not in disagreement (she’s very pro-gun, like me), but in near-disbelief at the lack of government intrusion in this arena of Vermont life.
Had we not other things to do and discuss at that point in time, I might’ve raised the question: “Don’t you have that in reverse?”
The knee-jerk supposition that, when it comes to something as potentially dangerous as guns, the default position in every arena either is or ought to be government regulation or restrictions of some kind, is so deeply ingrained into the psyche of the average person as to be sacrosanct. Since people in general cannot be trusted to act responsibly -- so this mode of thinking goes -- people operating under the auspices of government must be regarded as themselves responsible, moral, judicious, and entirely accountable…lest the world sink into blood-soaked madness and chaos 15 minutes after their disappearance.
The most obvious question that never gets asked is: “What, pray tell, makes you believe that those who call themselves government – those whose very livings are derived from stolen and extorted loot (taxes), are themselves more heavily armed than anyone else, and are responsible for every war that has ever been waged in history -- are in fact more responsible, moral, judicious and accountable than anyone else? In fact, doesn’t 7,000 plus years of human history scream that the precise opposite is true?”
The answer, of course, is conditioning. Hammered repeatedly enough for long enough with lies and propaganda, the average human mind can be made to believe just about anything. Just ask Patty Hearst, as one example.
Getting back to my original vignette involving my friend and I, given the objective reality of government, versus the conditioning most of us receive during our lives, shouldn’t the existence of restrictive gun laws (to cite only the example at hand) be that which we regard as “crazy” and not the absence of them? To elaborate, which might we regard as more sane and rational: The exercise of natural human freedom, and all of the risks that ensue from such . . . or the curtailing of liberty . . . and what we already know happens in that case?
I will not apologize for my stand as a libertarian anarchist. If anything, those of us willing to look at reality and objective facts divorced from any and all emotional precepts are owed apologies by those who refuse to do the same, and continue to victimize us as a result of their lying, timid ignorance. I refuse to be dumbed-down, conditioned, treated like an animalistic member of the lowest common denominator, and continue to have my intelligence insulted by the backwards, self-contradictory illogic of statism.
As I work towards doing my small part to turn upside-down right-side up, and build a truly free voluntary society, I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for those I’m Sorrys. But if in fact that is what you current statists are ever inclined to do, the best possible way is by walking away from the ideology you live by, and thereby relegating it forever to the trashcan of an inexcusably barbaric past.