Nice Men with Guns

I have a friend on Facebook who said this to me this morning; "I would like to support a constitutional government but at some point you are going to have to deal with mean people that do crappy things to other people through threat of violence and intimidation."

While that statement is true it got me thinking. Look at this; the threat of violence and intimidation is the only thing the government has to use to accomplish anything. No matter what it is that the Big Government wants to do, no matter what benefit they say it would be to everybody involved, the threat of violence and intimidation is the only tool they have to get it done. And how often is it that the mean people who are doing the crappy things to other people, are in the Big Government? That's what despotism is. You want to limit mean people that do crappy things to other people using such tactics? Then the first thing you have to do is limit the power of the government. Tyranny IS the threat of violence and intimidation.

Now I am not saying that there should be NO government. Brett's rule of debate #1 is; just because I don't agree with something does not mean I endorse what you conceive to be its most radical opposite. Just because I don't support absolute government does not mean I support no government. No anarchy for me please. As a the grandson of a nice man with a gun I have to say right here and now that I have the greatest unqualified respect for the police and the government within their proper function. There is a time and place for police as well as other government functions.  It's just that we are becoming far too accustomed with the idea that the government is supposed to provide us with everything, without understanding the nature of the consequences. If they provide everything, they control everything, even when they don't make sense.

There is a rather famous quote attributed to George Washington, "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." I believe based on any research I've done, that Washington was not the original author of this quote. But really, whoever said it, no matter who it was, it is still the truth.

As a nation We the People have lost sight of something valuable. We have become dependent on Big Government to give us things without seeing the inevitable consequence that everything we allow the government to do to our supposed benefit, authorizes them to use the threat of violence and intimidation against us in that area.

Do you want roads? It's kind of nice to be able to get on I90 in Toledo, Ohio and drive all of the way to Seattle, Washington isn't it? Well where did the funding for that come from?

Somebody, somewhere, made that money. At some point the people who made that money had to fill out some tax forms and report their financial information to the federal government, along with a check for some number of dollars. Now some people would say, "Yea! Tax dollars for roads so we can drive across the country!" But the fact is undeniable to those who pay the taxes that failure to do so would result in a visit from Guido and Vinnie, the IRS agents. If you think for a moment that a visit from Guido and Vinnie is not intimidating you have never received a letter from the IRS. That is all there is in one of those letters. Unveiled, obvious threats of the things that will happen to you if you don't cough up the cash. Should the taxpayer decide he does not want those roads, or to give up his hard earned cash, Guido and Vinnie will fill out a warrant and nice men with guns will kindly show up at his door, incarcerate him and take his stuff.

So what about the land that the highway is built on? The federal government wants their road. Most of the time they would pay for the land for this kind of cause. What happens when the owner decides not to sell? Well, there is precedent for this. President Grant had a unique solution. He ordered General Sherman to kill all of the Indians along the route of the Transcontinental Railroad.

Genocide is a pretty crappy thing; usually done by mean people to other people. But it did give us the Transcontinental Railroad. Who did it? Well, the federal government of the United States.

Now, because of that sort of precedent, the owner of the property where I90 is supposed to go, knows he stands no chance. The best he can do is make as much noise as possible on the way out. One side will label him as a radical. The other side will label him as a hero or a victim.

Either way, that is the use of threat of violence and intimidation against us. Either way the right of property is being denied to the person who worked and owned that land. This is the naked truth of the situation before us in this country today.

The formula for passing something of this nature has to include some supposed benefit to "everybody." That they make it sound like something good, that everybody needs, and that they are the only beings on the planet who can get it done, is a con game. Sugar coated crap is still crap. Sugar coated force is still force. Anybody who disagrees, because the act of passing things of this sort has some supposed benefit to and unspecified generality known as "everybody," is labeled an anti-social radical. Swept under the rug is the fact that those people who owned the land and made the money have individual rights to their property too.

Here's the operating principle. Write it down so you'll remember it later. Every single time you grant the government the authority to do something on your behalf, you are also granting them the power to use the threat of violence and intimidation against you so that you will be forced to comply.

You want welfare? Nice men with guns will take your money and give it to someone else. You want government healthcare? The IRS—nice men with guns—has the authority to use the threat of violence and intimidation to insure your compliance. You want government Social Security? If your employer doesn't pay it nice men with guns will arrest him and thrown him in prison. The threat of violence and intimidation is all they have to use on anybody who does not comply with their wishes. And if you think that these things are not threatening, just fail to pay your taxes, once, and wait and see how threatening and intimidating the federal government verses YOU, can really be.

All you need after that is mean people who do crappy things to other people in the government and voilà!, tyranny and oppression. Something of a note on human nature is that mean people who do crappy things to other people have a tendency to be drawn to power like a moth to flames.

A limited federal government does not mean anarchy. It just means less threat of violence and intimidation from the federal government. The idea of a well regulated government is to assign only the appropriate level of the threat of violence and intimidation to the level where it belongs, and use that power only where it is absolutely necessary to preserve the peace and freedom of the people in the area where that power applies.

Let's say that a country called "Dumbcrapistan" decides to bomb Toledo, Ohio. National threat, right? Then the national government, under the direction of the Commander in Chief, gets involved and uses the threat of violence and intimidation against Dumbcrapistan to protect the People of the great state of Ohio. That's the appropriate level of government using the appropriate level of threat and force to protect the people of Ohio and the country. Under this protection the people of Ohio, and the United States, can get on with their lives.

Let's say that Brett catches the flu. Now we have a national government, capable of bombing Dumbcrapistan, wielding an incredible amount of threat and intimidation, through Vinnie and Guido who are nice men with guns who work for the IRS, being used against you, toward the effect of paying Brett's doctor bill. This makes the president of the United States of America directly and personally responsible for my health, and you being personally responsible for paying it. I ask you, is this the kind of force, and purpose, you want to have used against you for my benefit? Setting aside completely that there is no way to make any organizational sense out of it, is this the appropriate power to apply to the problem of my personal health?

Philosophically speaking, the definition of a useful tool would be one that provides or conducts the right amount of force, to the right places, to the accomplishment of a desired task.

Would you expect Michelangelo to carve David with a jack hammer? Well, with the federal government of these days it would be more like trying to carve David with dynamite. Just as dynamite is a great tool for certain jobs, it is just as much the wrong tool to carve David as it would be to use the power of the federal government to cure Brett's case of the flu—at least as far as Brett is concerned.

Just as you would use the right tools to employ the appropriate force to carve a statue, so should you choose the right force of government to resolve problems; never letting that force exceed the necessity of the task.

With regards to the principles of the Constitution, it all comes down a question of which things you want the government to be able to employ the use of force against you. In other words; which things do you want nice men with guns to force you to do?