Monday, April 28, 2014

Does Cliven Bundy 'Matter'?

Many Americans are watching the Cliven Bundy story unfold with sadness and consternation.

Is it just human nature, or Pavlovian training, that makes people confuse personalities with principle? "How can you back a man like Bundy who expresses such backward thinking?" they ask, no doubt at least for some, with great sincerity.

The fact that what Mr. Bundy is commonly understood to have said differs greatly from what he, when heard in full context, actually said, is a rather separate point, worthy, perhaps, of a blog piece of its own. -One using this case to demonstrate the everyday distortions readers, watchers and listener's experience due our highly partisan, and thoroughly manipulative, media.

But today's blog is about something different. It is about the even more fundamental concept that one's supporting Mr. Bundy's in his fight against the Bureau of Land Managment
 should not be dependant upon whether we "like" Bundy as a person or share his general world view. No, no more than fighting for someone's freedom of speech should be about "liking" the speaker or agreeing with what he or she has to say. 

To love liberty is to support every person's right to free speech and free thinking because such right is, and must remain, universal -- inalienable -- i.e., a right that cannot be taken away, denied, or transferred -- if liberty is to exist at all.

It is, and must remain, fundamental in a society based on liberty and human rights that those who have power be held to higher standards than even the general populous. Thus we expect the police to use force in only the most measured way -- unlike an assailant who might use it freely and totaly for his own ends. Too, we rightfully expect greater restraint from a judge speaking from the bench than we do from a person standing before that bench.

It increasingly seems to many onlookers, including this writer, that these fundamental principles are being forgotten and ignored by our society. People are being allowed to transgress freely, or not at all, depending on their likability, popularity and whether or not we agree with them on issues that may be important to us personally, but that are not germane to the subject at hand.

These are the qualities of clannish societies. Of so-called "banana republics," not of free, liberty-loving, people.

Shouting "hurray for our side!" is both fun and acceptable on the football field. But it has no place in the administration of public policy or justice. Support for Cliven Bundy remaining free, both as regards his livelihood and his standing before the law, unthreatened by those with power, is thus fundamental to the liberty of all.

In the end, misrepresented ot not, what Mr. Bundy personally thinks and feels about this or that has no relevance at all.

This blog posting has been adapted from one originally written for, and posted by,  American Thinker

Tuesday, April 22, 2014

"The People against So and So"

What enabled civil societies in general, and American frontier societies in particular, to put aside the concept of “six-gun justice” and turn over responsibility for their protection to the police and the courts? The one word answer is trust.

Those later words represent a beautiful concept: That you and I -- our families and communities -- need not be concerned about the protection of our lives and property because we as a people look out for one-another. That you and I need not carry a firearm on our person, or even be trained in the use of such, because there is someone we trust to care for that for us. To protect our persons, our property and our rights.

In frontier towns of the old west this occurring was a marvelous thing. It freed up the farmer, the rancher, the store keeper, the teacher, the doctor, the homemaker -- everyone -- to concentrate on their own affairs. If anyone came into town with harmful intent an appointed Marshall was there to stop them. If there was a question of intent or a disagreement under law, then there was a trusted judge, and a body of citizens making up a jury, to hear the facts of the case and see to it that justice was done, that the innocent were protected, that the guilty were punished. And that being the case the "six gun" -- the "great equalizer" as it was called -- could be set aside and consigned to a drawer. Citizens going about their daily affairs simply would no longer feel the need to carry one. They were safe. Their interests were secured by others that they knew they could trust.

If one sees the existence of police and courts in this light -- not just as something that "is," and that for some unspecified reason deserves our obedience and respect -- then the reasons for the slow turning back towards “frontier justice” in America becomes understandable. 

As police become increasingly seen as the "other" -- as ones to be feared, as heavily armed agents for those whose interests are not necessarily our interests – we simply no longer feel safe.  And if the courts, too, are seen, not as being there to protect us -- if the charges brought in court do not in reality reflect "The People against So an So” -- then where is the "great equalizer,” the thing that protects our rights and property, the safety of our families, our interests?  Might we not, then, see the need to reclaim that six-shooter -- that "great equalizer" -- from the draw and again strap it, if not literally, than figuratively, on our hip?

That is exactly what we see happening in America today. And this root cause -- the realization (for that is what it is) that in many cases the police and courts are not there to protect us, but to protect the interests of others (indeed, often the interests of the government itself) that is leading people to again see the need to start ‘strapping on their six-shooters.’ They are doing this, individually and as groups, not for some nefarious reason, but simply to assure their own protection and the protection of all that they love.

Who, then, is responsible for this change? Those who make the police the armed "other." Those who make the courts the tool of special interests -- especially the interests of the government itself.

People like Mayor Bloomberg can pay others to create advertisements designed to make people afraid of guns. But in truth legitimate fear is what makes people want to carry a gun in the first place. 

You cannot carry a policeman, a lawyer or a judge in your pocket or strapped to your hip. But in effect the government can and does. Well-funded special interests can and do. You can, though, carry a pistol.

If we again want the farmer, the rancher, the store keeper, the teacher, the doctor, the homemaker -- everyone -- to be able go through their lives concentrating solely on their own affairs and without concern for their own safety, then the police and the courts have to once again truly be able to say, on their -- on our -- behalf, that their case is "the people against so and so,” not so and so against the people.

Sadly, we as a nation currently seem to be going in the very opposite direction.

This blog post was originally written for, and published by, American Thinker