Defending Liberty

Fred Snowflack is right.

As much as it pains me to write that sentence, his conclusion, "... we will likely never see a right-to-carry law in New Jersey" hits the mark.

But consider his logic: he feels safer chancing victimhood in another VT-style shooting than permitting his fellow citizens to carry guns. He poses this question: "would you feel safer if you knew that half the people in your immediate work area every day were carrying guns"?

Well, what if you work in the police station, and EVERYONE, not just half of your co-employees, is packing heat? Does one feel safer in a police station, where guns are ubiquitous, or in a school, in which they are totally absent (except for the occasional bad guy)?

Put another way, was VT safer when only one guy had a gun, or later in the day, when it veritably crawled with men carrying "assault" rifles?

Some folks observe, "well, yes, but those folks were cops or soldiers, agents of the government", but, in America, we draw no particular distinction in according rights depending upon one’s employer. Why would one feel safer, living next to a cop, whom one knows to possess a firearm, than next to an armed someone not blessed with a badge? Are not cops every bit as likely to go insane as any other ordinary law abiding citizen? Indeed, evidence shows that, in states with concealed carry laws, those who hold permits are less likely than the balance of the citizenry to commit a gun crime.

Fred’s also right: events like those at VT are extraordinarily rare – which, of course, militates strongly against using them as examples to deprive the millions of law-abiding Americans of their fundamental rights.

Now, let’s be clear: guns ARE dangerous, when in the wrong hands. But more kids die in backyard swimming pool accidents than in gun accidents. In NJ, you’re 66 times more likely to be beaten to death than to face the business end of a long gun.

The question, then, is would we, as a society, be more secure in our freedom if only agents of government possess firearms?

Our Constitution embodies our Framers’ answer: absolutely not.

The men who wrote the Constitution, and the people who ratified it, had just survived a revolution, fought by citizen soldiers against the lawfully constituted authority. They understood quite a bit about human nature and power. They saw state militias as a military check upon federal usurpation of power. And they saw the people as a military check upon both.

The biggest threat to our freedom comes not from a lone wacko, or even from the occasional criminal, but from government. Interestingly, the same folks who cry bloody murder at governmental abuses like racial profiling, "illegal" wiretapping, data mining, and the like, would entrust these same folks with an absolute monopoly on firearms.

Throughout history, around the world, when governmental agents show up on the streets with rifles, they are not there to preserve liberty. Just because that hasn’t happened here doesn’t mean it can’t. As Humbert Humphrey – hardly a conservative Republican icon – once wrote:

"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms…. The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible."

One of the great paradoxes of liberty is that soldiers are necessary to preserve it, but constitute the greatest threat to its existence. Ditto governments: we require government to enjoy liberty, but government is also liberty’s mortal enemy. Government, however seemingly beneficent today, simply cannot be trusted to remain that way. Just as the people banded together to win our liberty, in large measure with guns they themselves owned (and certainly personally possessed), so, too, our liberty may, someday, depend upon our willingness to PERSONALLY defend it.

Obviously, the lives of many of the victims at VT were lost because of their inability to defend themselves. The lesson to be learned is that when evil shows up at one’s door, it tends to arrive heavily armed. One’s life – and one’s liberty – depend upon one’s willingness – and ability – to defend it.

An armed society is a free society; the liberty of a disarmed society depends upon the willingness of the folks in power to respect it. As VT teaches on a smaller scale, just one man willing to kill can wreak havoc among a helpless population. That probably explains, in part, why he chose to attack a school rather than a police station. Had he encountered just one other armed citizen, the carnage would have ended quickly.

We in NJ, alas, approach gun issues with all the logic of the Mother in "A Christmas Story". Not long ago, a bill to ban 50 caliber weapons came before my Committee, and I asked the sponsor some questions. Flustered, she replied: "How should I know? I don’t know anything about guns!"

Or, apparently, about freedom.

We might all be marginally safer against criminal acts if we somehow found a way to impose a perfect ban on firearms. (The evidence is to the contrary in the nations which have tried it) But who would stop the stormtroopers when they come knocking on the door?

Would the Holocaust have occurred if the Jews were armed? Would slavery have persisted if the slaves were armed? How would the KKK have done if its victims shot back?

Freedom is most certainly risky. Sometimes, our fellow citizens abuse it. Sometimes, albeit very rarely, a nutcase makes use of our freedom and wreaks havoc. But it takes government to pursue mass murder on a truly industrial scale, and the one constant, in every case of enslavement or genocide, is a disarmed group of victims.

As respects the right to carry, Fred, we have a choice: run the very real risk that a criminal or a nutcase will chose us as a victim, or the very small risk of finding oneself on the business end of another citizen’s piece? If you don’t fear the cops, and would have felt safe surrounded by a sea of armed men with badges at VT, why does your faith falter when consorting with an armed neighbor or coworker?

I, for one, don’t fear my neighbors, and rest peacefully knowing that many of them keep arms in the homes. We, as a society, are much safer -- and freer -- for that fact. Only criminals and tyrants need fear an armed population.

Party Principals

Yesterday, a Member of the Republican "leadership" officially switched parties and announced his intention to seek a Senate seat as a Democrat.

Of old, certain "moderate Republicans", castigated by conservatives with the derisive label RINO – Republicans in Name Only – protested that the dedication of such "moderates" to the Party ran as deep as did that of their more conservative brethren, despite apostasy on some issues.

Now, as recent circumstances demonstrate, we find that assertion revealed as pure, utter bunk.

All too often, the so-called "moderates" dedication to the Republican Party penetrates no deeper than their own ambition or pique. Can you imagine the likes of a Doherty, a Merkt, a Carroll, a Lonegan, or the like, betraying the Party simply because they lost an election? If Guy Gregg were to lose his pending primary, can anyone imagine him seeking office as a Democrat?

Contrariwise, can anyone imagine Loretta Weinberg, should she lose, joining the GOP? Nothing personal, she’s a nice lady, albeit profoundly misguided and wrong on just about everything. While I would not mind belonging to a book club with her, there is simply no room in the GOP for socialist, anti-freedom views like hers.

The aforementioned "Republican leader" repeatedly supported patently idiotic Democratic initiatives, undercutting the GOP’s message of fiscal responsibility, small government, low taxes, and personal freedom. He supported the spectacularly foolish and fraudulently named "millionaires’ tax". He supported the Highlands Act, perhaps the most massive theft of land values in American history.

For his repeated betrayal of Republican principles, the Party rewarded him a seat in leadership.

With "leaders" like this, small wonder that the Republican Party in New Jersey labors in well-deserved irrelevance.

Certainly, the feeling of personal betrayal one experiences when one is ousted from a seat, denied a line, etc., is easy to comprehend. This gentlemen felt the sting of rejection from Party stalwarts recently. In light of his decidedly un-Republican votes, this rejection should come as no surprise. But instead of taking this well-deserved rebuff as he should, he switched parties, betraying both the Party he purported to love enough to lead, and demonstrating a complete want of principle.

Now, let’s be clear; there is no particular dishonor in switching Parties when one’s personal values diverge from the Party’s positions. Indeed, simple honesty compels that result. Any Democrat who favors fiscal restraint, low taxes, political ethics, and personal freedom/responsibility should reassess his/her Party affiliation. A RINO who, for some reason, still has an "R" after his name, despite supporting higher taxes, bigger government, massive governmental regulation, and attacks on property rights, SHOULD leave. And he should not let the door hit him in the arse on the way out.

The point, then, is not to condemn a particular RINO for leaving the Party, but to lament that it took him so long to do so, and that he did it only after being rebuffed by the Party he assertedly very much wanted to serve.

This is not to aver that principled disagreement among Republicans on some issues is impossible. But if, on core issues – taxes, spending, personal freedom, property rights, etc. – one rejects the fundamental principles of the Party, one should leave it, not purport to lead it.

Democrats make no pretense of supporting lower taxes, except when they lie about it to get elected. They make no pretense of caring about private property rights, if that would interfere with cozy urban "redevelopment" projects. They have absolutely no difficulty imposing the costs of environmental protection upon property owners rather than upon the society which allegedly benefits. They LIKE big government and massive spending; it gets someone else to pay their bills. They like mandates and compulsion. That's what makes them different from Republicans who, generally, are highly suspicious of governmental power.

It’s not as if the GOP suddenly lurched out from under the feet of this "leader"; the inevitable conclusion at which one arrives is that his actions bespeak nothing more than personal ambition and pique, annoyance that the Party finally took notice of his deviation from its principles. Had he left before that rejection, on principle, such would have been honorable. And desirable. While the Republican Party does not insist on marching in ideological lockstep on every issue, Party affiliation means something, and those who reject the fundamental principles upon which the Party is based should find a more congenial home.

But about one thing the Party should be clear: it’s purported "leaders" should not vote to undercut its message. The leadership of the GOP should not include people who believe and act like Democrats.

Public Corruption

A wag once noted that, in government, the scandal lies in that which is perfectly legal, not that which attracts that attention of the US Attorney.

Consider: Senator Wayne Bryant faces the possibility of a significant vacation at a federal facility, at taxpayer expense, because he allegedly secured a no-show (or almost-no-show) job for himself in conjunction with a massive pork project he secured for a state institution in his district. The total cost to taxpayers: maybe $40K per annum.

At the same time, Lawnside, his home town, boasts a brand new, $350K fire truck, purchased by the State taxpayers at Bryant’s behest.

So, screwing the state taxpayers out of $350K to underwrite what should be a local expense passes muster, but taking a small piece for yourself does not. Makes perfect sense, right?

As others point out more eloquently than I, we have become an increasingly corrupt society, if only because we fail to realize that BOTH of the examples above define corruption. Perhaps, then, we require a simplified definition of that word, such that people can identify it when they see it, even -- especially -- in themselves.

"Corruption (n): using political power to secure a benefit for yourself at someone else’s expense."

Examples of perfectly legal corruption abound, such as when public employees wield their political power to secure benefits, at public expense, far in excess of that which their private sector counterparts command. (Private sector managers are, generally, not subject to being voted out of office) Or consider urban municipalities, which employ their substantial voting power to shower themselves with goodies for which they do not pay.

But it runs even deeper than that.

The modern Democratic Party exists expressly to support corruption, in the sense of declaring that it’s perfectly acceptable for society to put the distribution of our neighbors’ income up to a vote. Virtually the entire Party consists of a coalition of folks banding together, demanding that someone else pay their bills. When The New York Times complains that spending cuts (not that we’ve actually seen any) elevate "tax cuts for the rich" over governmental programs, that translates into an assertion that we, the people, may properly seize a portion of what our neighbors’ earn, and use it to subsidize our own desires.

Take a concrete, wildly popular example: college tuition subsidies.

College tends to cost a great deal because professors work too little and are paid too much. Because colleges now resemble resorts more than schools. Because virtually every college offers wholly frivolous areas of "study", such as "Women’s Studies", "Black Studies", "Queer Studies", and the like. And because, increasingly, the people who receive such education don’t pay for it and, hence, don’t care about the cost. When tuition increases threaten, instead of looking at their college presidents and demanding an explanation – "Excuse me, sir. Why are we paying a FOOTBALL COACH more than a $1 million per year? I thought the purpose of a college was education, not football. Indeed, sir; why are we paying you three times as much as we pay the Governor?" – they turn to their legislators and demand additional subsidies.

Sometimes, it’s pleasant to imagine a discussion between such a supplicant and the taxpayer who actually pays the bills:

Student: "College is too expensive. I need help paying my tuition."

Taxpayer: "I sympathize. But I don’t remember adopting you. By what right do you demand of me that I subsidize your education?"

Student: "Er, well, ..."

Small wonder, then, that representatives like Wayne Bryant win election overwhelmingly, and are hugely popular at home. Bryant pillaged the state treasury for the benefit of his constituents; if he reserved a small stipend for himself, why should they complain? If a pirate presents you with millions in plunder, do you really care that he took a few thou for himself?

But Bryant’s finder's fee presents small threat to self-government; as this indictment demonstrates, the law already provides a remedy for representatives who take a cut of the boodle. Rather, the boodle itself constitutes the most egregious threat. The idea that it’s proper to wield government as a sword, to steal from our neighbors and pocket the proceeds, is pernicious in the extreme.

A number of years ago, I proposed legislation to require the reading of a small portion of the Declaration of Independence before each school day, the purpose being to remind our children, every single day, of the basis for self-government. Perhaps, it would behoove us to compel the recitation of Jack Kennedy’s "ask not" paragraph, to remind our people that we should not be approaching government with our hands out – the equivalent of thrusting our hands into our neighbors’ pockets; that -- competent, responsible adults -- we are entitled to nothing we don’t earn.

As long as the people accept pillage as the legitimate province of government, men like Wayne Bryant will continue to oblige. His corruption pales in comparison to that of the people, and his illegal actions represent chump change compared with his perfectly legal piracy.

Bryant, clearly, saw governmental service as a way of enriching himself at collective expense. Unfortunately, the people, apparently, differ little, seeing government as a way of benefitting themselves at the expense of their neighbors. This collective corruption presents an infinitely greater threat than does the apparent greed of one man.