By Jim Fryar
Every time that a shooting becomes a media event, either because of the numbers shot, or the importance of the victim, we hear calls for gun control. “This could not have happened if guns were outlawed.”
This is of course a simple solution, appealing to the simple minds of both it’s promoters and it’s supporters. The principle of the argument is, that sprinkled among the tens of millions of law abiding gun owners, there is a small proportion of people who are likely to commit crimes with firearms.
The argument then is that in order to remove the guns from lawbreakers, all we have to do is to pass laws removing all firearms from all of the public. These laws assume that violent criminals will hand in their arms, as the law says that they have to.
“Aw gee how do we do an armed hold-up now.”
These laws are dangerous as they assume that people have to prove to the authorities that they are innocent before they can have a licence, if they can get one at all. Such laws are totalitarian in nature, as they lump all people in the basket together, and restrict the circumstances under which guns can be held. The Australian law will not even accept that we have any right to self-defence.
They are dangerous also, for the fact that they leave the lawabiding population at the mercy of those who disrequard the law, the criminal element.
If we are to accept that in a free society we have the right to life, liberty, property etc. then we have the right to defend those rights. They are not just rights as long as someone doesn’t want to deny them to us. If it is assumed that we have to hand over the right of self-defence to the government, then it is logical to accept that the government assumes a duty of care to provide enough law enforcement to ensure that they are there whenever one of us is threatened.
The only way to achieve this is a police state. “Gee isn’t this a lot better.”
It is a simple matter of property rights; anyone who wishes to own a firearm should have the right to do so. Nobody should have to explain to any one his or her wish to go hunting, target shooting, get rid of a few feral pests around the property, or any other reason they may have.
Penalties for crimes committed with any offensive weapon should be severe; no person has the right to threaten or harm another, especially with a weapon of any sort.
Gun laws are just another victimless crime law.
Apr 29, 2007
By Jim Fryar
Apr 28, 2007
What’s in a name?
Many years ago, I persued my interest in politics into various “philosophies” without finding much satisfaction. I was probably too young and idealistic, as I found inconsistencies in the beliefs of all parties, and a tyrannical belief among members of those parties of toeing the party line.
Eventually I found a thing called libertarianism, which had a solid philosophical base behind it and was totally consistent in all its ideas. The problem with it was that in being consistent, it had consequences that were hard to accept.
I mean, I liked the idea of smaller government and less taxes, I liked the idea of less interference in the things I wanted to do, I liked lots of things about it. The trouble was, they allowed people to do things that I had always been taught not to believe in, like taking drugs, doing business in a totally unrestricted way, setting prices without reference to government agencies, and no rules on personal morality.
They even believed in free trade.
Can you believe that? I mean these people were right off the planet.
However I seemed to be drawn back to them, at first to try to put them back on the right track, then to hear their ideas on various issues. Although I was justifiably sceptical, they had a bloody irritating habit of having sound arguments and worst of all, being right.
By the time I joined them, I had come to the realisation that nobody took any notice of laws on what I now thought of as victimless crime, the drug laws (which are the same thing) didn’t work, and business laws only stuffed up the economy. I was thinking like a bloody idealist.
Well, my dad always said, I’d get into the wrong company and come to no good.
Anyhow back then Libertarian politics was more than the debating society it now seems to be, and we actually formulated realistic policies and stood in elections on those policies, with expectations that we would eventually get the message across and start winning.
When you are in competitive politics, you invariably meet, gain respect for and in some cases become friends with opponents unless the campaign gets bogged down in personal vilification, which doesn’t tend to happen out in the electorate, lets face you go back to living in the same community afterwards.
As such some of these opponents used to advise us privately that we should get rid of the idealism, and come out into the real world. This is why I am now,
REAL WORLD LIBERTARIAN.
I was alerted to the following story while reading Michelle Malkin.
The Daily Telegraph announced that the BBC had pulled the plug on a drama about Johnson Beharry, a Victoria Cross winner in the Iraq conflict. The Victoria Cross is Britains highest military decoration, rarely awarded, and then only for "conspicuous gallantry above and beyond the call of duty." This is the first time it has been awarded since 1982 in the Falklands war.
The telegraph reports as follows: -
“Private Johnson Beharry's courage in rescuing an ambushed foot patrol, then in a second act, saving his vehicle's crew despite his own terrible injuries earned him a Victoria Cross.
For the BBC, however, his story is "too positive" about the conflict.
The corporation has cancelled the commission for a 90-minute drama about Britain's youngest surviving Victoria Cross hero because it feared it would alienate members of the audience opposed to the war in Iraq.
The BBC's retreat from the project, which had the working title Victoria Cross, has sparked accusations of cowardice and will reignite the debate about the broadcaster's alleged lack of patriotism.”
Apparently the BBC feels that in the pursuance of balanced broadcasting it can only show items of interest to the opponents of involvement in the war. Nothing of a positive nature can be featured.
The left have a great ability to couch their own brand of censorship in noble terms with the use of semantics.
Apr 22, 2007
By Jim Fryar
Just what prompts the lunatic fringe to carry out the sort of atrocity we have seen at Virginia Tech?
If the perpetrator is to be believed, it was because the victims made him do it. ”You made me do it.” This is the sort of shit we hear from the leftist, nanny state excuse seekers, who follow the concept of “Society is to blame, not I”. It’s like “ Nobody likes me, there must be something wrong with them”, or “What ever I fail at, what ever I don’t like, its someone else’s fault”.
If we are to live in a free society, one of the downsides is the fact that we have to consider our actions, and the way we relate to people, follow through if appropriate, but always accept personal responsibility for what goes wrong. Those who don’t do so will rarely succeed, as they do not have the acceptance of responsibility, to allow them to correct errors and go on, after all, “it’s not my fault”, therefore there is nothing to correct. This is taking the easy way out, the guaranteed failure way.
We don’t live in a world of contrary gods, who amuse themselves at our expense, if things don’t go our way; it is usually something to do with ourselves. If we are unable to get along with the people around us, perhaps we have the wrong attitude, or they simply have different interests to ours, in which case, we need to find another group more compatible with us, or develop an interest in whatever they are into.
Intolerance, and blame will solve nothing.
On odd occasions, factors beyond our control can get in the way, but plans should allow for the unpredictability of things like weather, traffic, consumer sentiment, etc. We can usually work out the factors affecting a plan, the ones that we can’t be 100% sure will be with us, and allow for those.
One of the few things that can’t be predicted is the stroke of the legislator’s pen, the change of government policy that will change the whole business or social environment, at short notice. The only reason this can happen where lawful activities, - that is acts which harm no one else, are involved is that we are over governed.
Unfortunately, the solution that the public tend to look for in the case of shootings, is to give the state the power it is aching for, that is, the power to disarm the law abiding public. The reason I say the law abiding public is that the others will ignore such laws, as will much of the normally law abiding, thus becoming criminals themselves.
Criminals will always access firearms, law or no law; respect for the law is not a big thing in the criminal community.
The only defence against this is the armed citizen who will act in these situations. As crimes are usually committed in the absence of police, they probably wont be there.
It is noticeable that mass killings occur in places where the perpetrator can be sure there will be no resistance, schools, and workplaces, etc. It seems to be some sort of idiosyncrasy that while they seem to have a death wish, they only seem to take on the defenceless.
Where people with the power to make rulings, decide that the persons in the areas they control should not have defensive weapons, they should have a personal duty of care to protect them.
Apr 15, 2007
“Anzac Day May Offend” So say the headlines in the papers here.
Anzac day, to those of you who are non-Australian is virtually our second national day, April 25 where we pay our respect to those of our servicemen who lost their lives in wars. Ironically it is the anniversary of the Gallapoli campaign, in which we and our allies copped an absolute thrashing. The only good things that came out of it was the incredible courage and honour of the troops, the brilliance of the withdrawal, and a healthy respect gained for the Turks.
Reading on, it is found that the article referrers to a study done at the instigation of Multicultural Affairs Queensland, by Monash University, and funded by the Queensland and Victorian state governments.
Reading further, it is then found that it is based on interviews with a whole 183 people in those two states, as a representative proportion of the 20+ million people here.
Reading the report itself, it is found that a conscious decision was taken not to interview people of Aboriginal origin, and “no conscious effort was made to interview people of Anglo Australian descent, although some Anglo Australians were interviewed as migrants from the UK or US, members of migrant organizations, Christian organization, converts to Islam or Buddhism, and tourist operators,” etc.
Apparently in the eyes of the multi-cultural industry here, the opinions of actual Australians are not worthy of consideration, unfortunately a view that we are getting used to from the arrogant twerps who seem to infest these committees.
It is claimed in the report, that some of this great sample (apparently mainly the Muslim sample) felt that Anzac day inspired “increased nationalism”, and blame a “climate of fear”, on the federal immigration and anti terrorist policies and the media.
Recommendations of the committee include: - more regulation of the press, compulsory teaching of Islamic history, Islamic religious teachers, and scheduling exams around the Islamic holy month of Ramadan.
It is apparent that in the eyes of Australia’s multiculturefuhrers, that when people fleeing from oppressive regimes arrive here, they have the right to demand that we toss our own values out to suit them. They are so out of touch with reality it is only to be expected that the only employment they can find is on government committees and academia.
People arriving in this country have the right to have their culture and traditions respected. If they wish to dress a certain way they can, if they observe a different faith they can, if there are certain things they don’t eat of drink they needn’t, in fact they should have the freedom to do anything that does not interfere with the rights of others.
They do not however, have the right to demand that we abide by those rules. We should be tolerant of them, and they should return this in kind.
One positive that came out of the press report was the statement of Dr Mohamad Abdalla, an imam at Brisbane’s Kuraby Mosque, who said, “Embracing events such as Anzac day does not contradict Islamic teachings, Muslims have joined the Australian armed forces and received medals. Anzac day events are not factors in inciting hatred. In fact they can help Muslims and non-Muslims to interact positively.”
“It’s not sufficient for Muslims to say that others should take action, the onus is also on them to go out and engage with non-Muslims”.
Welcome Dr. Abdalla, I hope that you represent the majority of your faith and I also hope that those who take your advice find it reciprocated.
Apr 6, 2007
I notice a great deal of publicity to third world “exploitation of workers, to the direct benefit of greedy westerners, who neither know, nor care of the hardship and misery etc. ad- infinatum, that is caused by it.”
The only way for the third, or developing world to advance is by producing products and services that people there or in other countries need and are prepared to pay for, or securing investment capital, which will allow them to do this.
This starts the process of paying for jobs, and causes an immediate benefit to those who do them, and for the suppliers of raw materials for the process, transporters and so on. This does not stop there, as extra money in the pocket is not in itself a benefit, the benefit is in what can be obtained from it, either immediately in food clothing housing, and so on, as well as future benefits that savings can bring.
By this process others benefit by providing goods and services, accessing saved funds by borrowing, or from investment by the savers, passing the benefit further. With each step someone benefits from his own work, passes on that benefit from the work of others, who go on to do the same into infinity.
Low pay is an issue often mentioned. Actual pay figures quoted for developing countries are irrelevant unless taken in the context of the economic situation in those countries as a whole. It is ok to say that the average worker in some place or other only gets x dollars per week or month, but the matter of significant importance is not the amount, but what that amount will buy in that country, and then only in the context of the general standard of living in that country.
We have all seen the type of documentry that features some unfortunate people in some poor country going out into the desert to chip salt and cart it in for a pittance. We all feel sorry for them, but they do this because that is a better option than the others available to them, sad but true. This is because of the poverty of the countries involved, the lack of economic development and opportunity, and in many cases the result of poor governance.
In far too many cases, the passed on economic benefit referred to above is hijacked along the way, not by private enterprise thieves, but by government thieves ripping the people off to engage in activities which are in many cases corrupt, of no benefit to the people from whom it came, and designed to benefit their own supporters and to keep themselves in power.
This is not our fault, unless we have allowed our governments to interfere in the political process there. It is the fault of the people in charge there and to some extent the culture there that allows such people to retain power.
Foreign aid can help to some extent, as can charitable foundations, but the fact is that the only way to make a lasting difference is for the people themselves to do it. If the whole GDP of the west was poured into the third world the results would probably be; impoverishment for us, some very rich dictators with wealthy hangers on, and sleek well-fed armies with excellent equipment, to keep the people in their place.
The best way that the world can help the developing countries is to trade with them on equitable terms, invest in industry and infrastructure, and in doing so improve the lot of thousands of people in the long term, however, for this to happen investors must have stability and security.
Such stability and security can, for this purpose only come from a fair society, where human rights were respected, as dealing with brutal repressive regimes, is likely to cause a consumer backlash against those companies doing it. Modern consumer ethics and the rapidity of communications virtually guarantee that they could not get away with it for any length of time.