Friday, December 28, 2012

...a seducer's lie.

Well hello there, Lawrence Hunter.  You caught me quite by surprise there, writing for Forbes and all, but I'll not let the source get in the way of the content:  this is just freaking outstanding:

Politicians who insist on despoiling the Constitution just a little bit for some greater good (gun control for “collective security”) are like a blackguard who lies to an innocent that she can yield to his advances, retain her virtue and risk getting only just a little bit pregnant—a seducer’s lie.

There is no amount of "wish I'd said that" that is sufficient to praise that image.  Like the battered wife analogy describing Liberty's relationship to the State, it works on every level you care to pursue.

The whole article is excellent;  a highly usable resource that can reach people who need to be reached.  Again, I'd not have expected Forbes for this much principle over pragmatism, but if minds are going to change, it's got to start somewhere, and I'm happy to call it out where I see it.

Deep tip of the hat to Vanderboegh for this one.  May Hunter's article successfully prepare many new people for the work of MBV, Codrea, Grigg...


MamaLiberty said...

All this talk about the "constitution" is fine, but ignores the fact that the right of self defense - and therefore the right to whatever tools are available - is something inherent in all living creatures and cannot simply be "repealed" by the will of some imposed on others.

Self ownership/responsibility and self defense - in voluntary cooperation with others - are the keys here, not "laws" of any kind.

Kevin Wilmeth said...

You know I'm with you on that, ML--at least I hope you do. But for anyone who still sees the rule of law as legitimate--you know, equal protection 'n shit--this is pretty compelling. And the 'seducer's lie' quote, by itself, can do much to shatter the image of the nobility of 'collective action' in the first place. I'll take it. :-)

MamaLiberty said...

Sure, Kevin... I just wonder how you think that can happen...

Their game, their rules, their tools...

How does that work again?

The "rule of law" is actually a big lie in "modern" society. The only legitimate rule of law is the law of non-aggression. As long as we accept any other, we will be fooled into playing their game.

The seducer's lie works just fine as long as anyone accepts the idea that they have any credence, any "authority."

The seducer can't do a damned thing to fool the self owner who holds a gun... and is willing/able to use it to defend themselves.

That's EXACTLY why they wish to disarm us.

Kevin Wilmeth said...

How I think what can happen? Respectfully, I think you may be ascribing to me an argument I am not making.

I no longer believe in "the rule of law" as I was taught it, and I personally revere the US Constitution just about as much as Lysander Spooner. Some years ago now, you were around when that transformation occurred, and I will always be grateful for your input when I was ready to hear it.

Since that time, I've not wavered on this, and I'm not sure what, here, would indicate otherwise.

I simply loved the "seducer's lie" quote, both as a literary image that exposes a lie for what it is, and also as an object example of how absurd the whole system is. The more people can see the crystal-clear absurdity of just about every aspect of the State's claimed monopoly on force, the more possible it becomes for someone who now still clings to the fictions, to overcome that and see the world how it really is.

I had to take that step separately, myself. Maybe that's why I see value in an article like this; even though it still leans on procedural absurdity as much as moral absurdity, there is still much in there that is right, Constitution or not, State or not. The sort of thing that can cause attentive readers to start asking the legitimacy questions that will then snowball on their own.

Like you, I will continue to work on minarchists until, like me, they run out of excuses, and realize that the ZAP really can act as the singular "legal framework" of an entire society. That work will probably never be done, but that won't keep me from trying anyway. :-)

MamaLiberty said...

"Respectfully, I think you may be ascribing to me an argument I am not making."

That's quite possible, of course. I'm certainly not arguing with you, just was puzzled by this enthusiasm for an article filled with appeals to the constitution, I guess.

"The Forbes article starts out with this: "It is time the critics of the Second Amendment put up and repeal it, or shut up about violating it."

I did read the whole thing, and he's got some of it right, but the idea that a repeal of the 2A would change any aspect of the absolute right to self defense pretty much turned me off to what he had to say.

He also said: "That is why the gun grabbers’ assault on firearms is not only, not even primarily an attack merely on the means of self-defense but more fundamentally, the gun grabbers are engaged in a blatant attack on the very legitimacy of self-defense itself. It’s not really about the guns; it is about the government’s ability to demand submission of the people. Gun control is part and parcel of the ongoing collectivist effort to eviscerate individual sovereignty and replace it with dependence upon and allegiance to the state."

If he'd just gone with that theme and forgotten the rest, I'd have been able to agree with him completely.

I guess my biggest problem is this whole idea of "starting where they are" and trying to talk them into being free by gradually jollying them along. Yes, I've done that myself at times for probably 50 years and I've not seen much in the way of results. I guess I'm just too old, tired and sore to want to do that anymore...

These days I simply ask the hard questions: "Who owns your life? Who is responsible for that life and your safety?" There are truly only two answers to those, "me" or "society" and only one answer comes from a free man or woman.

If people agree on the fundamental issue of self ownership, THEN almost anything else can be discussed. But I've found that those who do understand self ownership and accept that responsibility find most of the details - such as the constitution - no longer relevant.

YOU were never a statist... I don't even remember when I started talking with you, but I seriously doubt I would have if you had been any sort of controller then. :)

The controllers wish to eliminate our guns, our right and ability to defend ourselves, because they want to do things to us that we would not allow if we are armed and sure of our right of self defense.

I think the time for talk is just about over... soon it will be time to act, or die. I don't have to like it, but I don't think we can escape it. And I do not expect to survive it myself.