There is a tendency for people to only mind authoritarian
power grabs when they are attempted by the “other side” of the political
spectrum. A perfect example is the
PATRIOT Act – if that thing had been passed by Billy Clinton or Barack Obama, I
am not exaggerating or hyperbolizing at all when I say that I think that it
would have sparked a revolution. I mean
that literally. I’m seriously talking
blood-in-the-streets, people shooting government functionaries, military in the
cities quelling unrest, revo-goddamned-lution.
But it was passed by George Bush, and so it was welcomed
with open arms. It has only been since
Barack Obama took office that you see a lot of republicans start to stand
against it, thus proving a point that I’ve been trying to make for a lot of
years, which is to say that you should always, always be against authoritarian government power grabs of any sort,
even if it is your team implementing them, because
your team won’t always be in power. Once
they are in power, the other team can use those laws and legislations against
you once they get voted in, and all with your approval and applause.
In my opinion, my esteemed colleague Borepatch is making
just such a mistake on his blog. With
all due respect to him, I have to vehemently disagree with this. At the link, you’ll see him detailing, and
applauding, a law that is being considered in Nelson, Georgia to make gun
ownership mandatory in that town.
The township has a lot of very good reasons why they are
considering this. The town only has one
police officer, and in the 16 hours per day that he is not on shift, the
townspeople rely on the county sheriff for their policing. The problem with that is that the county is stretched
thin, too, and the response times are very, very slow. So the government there has decided that the
people need to be equipped to defend themselves during these off-hours if need
be. It’s not a bad idea to be so
equipped. If I lived there, I would be
armed, without question.
That being said, there is a huge gap between something being
a good idea, and it being right and proper to legislate that all citizens do it. I can think of a lot of good examples. The first that pops into my head are seatbelt
and helmet laws. A second would be
having health insurance. Yes, it is a
good idea to wear a seatbelt in the car and a helmet on your motorcycle. No, I would never consider driving my car
without buckling up, or riding my motorcycle without putting my helmet on. However, any government that thinks that it
can force me to wear my seatbelt or
put on a helmet by threat of violence* against me can go fuck themselves, and are treading dangerous grounds perilously
close to those of a benevolent dictatorship or tyranny.
It’s my life, and my decision what I do with it. If the citizens of Nelson, Georgia, do not
want to own a gun, the government there would do violence against them* to
force the issue, and I can’t possibly imagine how that is anything other than
brute tyranny. Just because I think that
what they are proscribing is a good idea does not make it any more or less
wrong than a government forcing me to buy or own anything else.
I think it is a good idea to have health insurance. I think that any thinking person that doesn’t
have a catastrophic care coverage is a drooling idiot flirting with economic
and physical calamity; but a government that tells me that they will do
violence against me if I choose not to own health insurance can go fuck themselves.
And so, leaders of the City of Nelson, Georgia, you are
tyrants if you pass this bill. Wear the
badge with pride; you’ve earned it.
I will close with my take on benevolent tyranny – it may
actually be worse than a malevolent tyranny, as described below by CS Lewis:
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of
its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber
barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may
sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who
torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with
the approval of their own conscience.”
No comments:
Post a Comment