This edition is excellent ALL THE WAY TO THE END. - Nina
If you are unable to view this email, please read it online.
May 3, 2013
The Room with David Galland
Today's Edition
More than a destination, ex-pat is a state of mind. The Founders were ex-pats, but they didn't go anywhere. This article mentions the tremendous benefits to health and well being.
This idea is central to the Western Association.
________________________________
From: Nina Ortega <ortegan@...>
To: bayareapatriots2@yahoogroups.com; lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, May 4, 2013 7:53 AM
Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Chains of ConventionThis edition is excellent ALL THE WAY TO THE END. - Nina
If you are unable to view this email, please read it online.
May 3, 2013
The Room with David GallandToday's Edition
-
- Chains of Convention
-
- I Am a Peaceful AR-15 Assault Rifle Owner
-
- Friday Funny
-
- Miscellany
-
print email facebook twitter
--
Sign Up Now
Get Casey Daily Dispatch delivered to your inbox
Sign Up
Chains of ConventionDear Reader,
I apologize if I wax a bit philosophically. There's something about living in a remote paradise disconnected from the constant blare of newsertainment that lends itself to pondering topics other than sports scores or the latest BIG THREAT.
The topic for today's missive came to mind while reflecting on the rather unconventional actions of a fellow resident here at La Estancia de Cafayate. For our purposes, we'll call her "Nancy." Nancy moved down here around the same time as we did – about six and a half months ago. (Quick aside to Nancy: If you read this and surmise your role in today's musings, please accept my apology in advance for any descriptors used that you take issue with).
While the average age of the owners here is quite young – about 50 – Nancy is somewhat older than that. Without being specific, she is of an age that some would describe as the "golden years": the years when one is expected to begin edging tentatively toward the rocker in front of the fire and all that.
Somewhat remarkably, before arriving in Cafayate Nancy had very little international travel experience and spoke no Spanish whatsoever. Further complicating her move, she doesn't drive a car.
Yet, one day she showed up, escorted by a relative who barely let the door close on her newly rented home before rushing back to the airport for the flight home.
If I were a betting man (and on the occasion of the Friday night poker games hereabouts, I am), on meeting Nancy I would have waged a considerable amount she wouldn't stick. Considering her age, her lack of international experience, lack of the local language, lack of basic transport, how could I have bet otherwise?
Initially, I would have thought my bet safe, especially after running into her at the clubhouse on the edge of tears, struggling with the help of the concierge to figure out how to navigate the somewhat complex Argentine financial system to pay her local bills.
To the surprise of pretty much everyone, however, she slowly emerged from the role which society (and perhaps her family) had cast her in back in the United States… the role of an individual on the steep downslope of life, her productive career finished and her future a slow wind down towards invisibility, first figuratively and then literally.
Yesterday, I ran into her in town, where she was touring around a young couple from New Zealand and their four-year-old son, who have taken up residence here for six months. Literally transformed, exuding confidence and a new found appreciation for herself, Nancy glows with the vibrant energy of life well lived. I understand she is looking to renew the lease on her rental house for three more years.
This transformation is the rule and not the exception. Another resident (now on the HOA board) arrived overweight and stressed. Today he could pose for ads showing middle-aged men with washboard abs. Another resident, my regular golf partner, tells me that before moving here he was always angry (mainly at the stupidity of government), but now you'd never know it, because it seems he never stops laughing.
The list of examples goes on. Personally, I have lost at least 15 pounds, no longer take the blood pressure medicine I was taking on arrival and am brimming with energy and a deep-felt happiness.
It was reflecting on the transformation that Nancy and most of us now living here – at least the ones who have stuck (and for a variety of reasons, not everyone has) – have gone through that the topic of today's missive came to mind.
Before moving on, I want to share a link to the fantastic song I'm currently listening to. As background, my dear partner Doug Casey and I concur on most movies and some music, the exception in the case of the former being The Thirteenth Warrior, a movie Doug loves for reasons that remain a mystery to me. In the case of music, Doug's favorite songstress is Nina Simone whom, while I find okay, is generally too old school for me – with the shining exception of her song Sinnerman, the full-length version of which I have been listening to on a loop this morning.Chains of Convention
David Galland, Managing DirectorIn a past edition of these musings, I shared my opinion that anyone still thinking the American Dream is alive and well was probably in for a bitter disappointment.
The experience of Nancy here in Cafayate has only strengthened that opinion. Instead of bowing to convention – i.e., lying down in a rut while waiting for it to be filled in as a grave – she made a decision to radically alter her life path by packing her suitcases and moving to a new life in northwest Argentina.
The only regret she probably has is that she didn't make a similarly big move when younger.
The problem, in my view, is that the current paradigm most people follow is a fiction, a construct made by the establishment to produce what might be termed "productive members of society."
But productive for whom? And in what form does this productivity take? A mule, for example, is considered productive only when pulling a plow or carrying a rider across difficult terrain – clearly work not suitable for you or me.
In my view, a productive human is someone who gets up in the morning, works at something they love and strives toward personal goals while saving more than they spend in order to remain independent and not a burden on family or society.
Yet following the path set out in the current paradigm for the "model citizen" will lead, for most, to an entirely different outcome.
The trailhead for the path of "citizen" begins by one studying at a public school (or a private school that adheres to a public-school curriculum, as most do), in the process being indoctrinated with all sorts of unscientific and unsound concepts… from political correctness, to obedience to the state, to the dire risks to our environment from evil capitalists, etc., ad nauseam.
Once you've graduated high school with all sorts of bad ideas, you're expected to continue your education with a university degree – any will major do – which for most means becoming oppressively indebted and facing a decade or more of crushing payments.
For the record, according to the Princeton Review, the top ten majors in the US are, in descending order:
1. Business administration. Of some general use, though most graduates with this degree will end up working as restaurant managers.
2. Psychology. For a civilization in the grips of a mass psychosis, perhaps of some value, but I wouldn't count on it.
3. Nursing. Considering the aging population, which ensures steady demand and therefore above-average salaries, not a bad choice, provided you don't mind the rather messy aspects of the job or being exposed to the latest germs.
4. Biology/biological sciences. Finally something to sink the teeth into, although for most the career path probably leads to standing in front of a classroom full of dozing teenagers.
5. Education. Here's where things start to get really challenging, given the low pay scale and overabundance of teachers that ensures the pay scale remains low. Then there's the whole dealing with the truly warped mentality overhanging today's educational system, dominated as it is by insane government mandates resulting in mindless political correctness, bad science, regular lock-downs, drugged children, etc. I know someone with a master's degree in education who has to drive almost two hours each way in order to work at something that pays close to minimum wage.
6. English language and literature. What's the right English phrase for "Good luck paying off your student loans"?
7. Economics. Anyone who chooses to go into debt to get a degree in economics should, by definition, be disqualified.
8. Communications studies. Make mine a Big Mac.
9. Political science and government. Certainly a growth industry, but with the exception of those at the top of the food chain, you'll be lucky to pull an average wage. If it's any consolation, you'll be able to feel self-important as you pontificate on how to solve the nation's problems by layering on yet more government.
10. Computer and Information Sciences. Though life in a cube holds no personal appeal, I suspect this is a field where you'd at least be able to earn enough to pay the interest on your debt.
So, there you find yourself on graduation day, university diploma in hand and in hock up to the top of your tasseled mortarboard. What's a person to do but get a job? If you're fortunate enough to actually find work, then the average starting salary for a college graduate in the US is $48,000. Not horrible.
Unfortunately, using a conservative calculation, you will then hand over a minimum of 33% of your income to the government in the form of taxes (federal and state income taxes, Social Security, Medicare, sales taxes, etc.), leaving you with $32,160 with which to service your student loan (on average, $1,800 per annum).
And of course, your living costs. The latest Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data has it that the average American spends $6,458 on food annually. Then there's clothes ($1,740); transportation ($8,293); entertainment ($2,572); personal insurance ($5,424); health care ($3,313); and miscellaneous ($5,102)… for a grand total of $34,702.
Let's recap:
Net salary = $32,160
Total expenses = $34,702
Balance: (2,542)
Whoops.
Of course, I generalize. For many people, the situation is much worse. One young American now knocking around Cafayate has, at the tender age of 25, student loan debt to the tune of $100,000 for a career she'll never pursue. And while some people will have learned personal restraint from caring parents and so carefully manage their credit, many more will throw caution to the wind in chasing after the latest hot consumer good, over-burdened credit card in hand.
The point I am trying to make is that following the conventional path – at least as far as education – will, for money, leave a person living pretty much hand to mouth. Is it any wonder that upwards of 40% of student loan debt is now in arrears?
And living hand to mouth will, for the vast majority, lock you into a career of convenience – i.e., the job you can get, not necessarily the job you actually want. Of course, the alpha types will keep an eye out for new and better opportunities, improving their skill sets through self-study and hard work so they'll be ready to jump when the opportunity arises. But the majority will settle into a job and, because they must, continue to work day after day not in the pursuit of some personal goal, but in the pursuit solely of a paycheck.
And that, dear readers, is what being a productive member of society means in the current context.
To me, it is akin to selling yourself into slavery.
And it's actually almost worse than that, because the academic curriculum in the Western economies has been usurped by the politicians and the perfect-worlders. So not only are most people not materially able to get ahead, but they can't think straight either. By that I mean their heads are so filled with propaganda about ginned-up threats that only the all-powerful state can solve, or counterproductive concepts about social justice and economics that when it comes time to separate fiction from fantasy, fiction usually wins out.
I well remember one young graduate proudly proclaiming himself as a Marxist over dinner. When pressed, it became clear he actually had zero idea of what being a Marxist actually meant, or the economic consequences of using the coercive power of the state in the attempt to level the economy.
And it's only going to get worse. In fact, everything you need to know about the future of American education, and by extension, America, can be found in this brief article that appeared on the always excellent Reason site.
Normally, I'd just drop in a quote and a link, but this is so outrageous, I'm pasting the whole thing here with full credit to Reason and Jesse Walker.
Zero Tolerance Watch: Teen Faces Felony Charges for Science Experiment
Jesse Walker, May 1, 2013, 9:45 am
Meet Kiera Wilmot, a 16-year-old student in Bartow, Florida. Before last week, Bartow High School Principal Ron Pritchard tells WTSP-TV, she had "never been in trouble before. Ever." But then, the station reports, she mix[ed] household chemicals in a tiny 8-ounce water bottle, causing the top to pop off, followed by billowing smoke in [a] small explosion.Wilmot's friends and classmates said it was "a science project gone bad, that she never meant to hurt anyone."
Even the teen's principal said, "She made a bad choice. Honestly, I don't think she meant to ever hurt anyone. She wanted to see what would happen [when the chemicals mixed] and was shocked by what it did. Her mother is shocked too."
The explosion happened around 7 a.m. Monday morning on school property, and no one was hurt. Staff, along with the school resource officer, acted quickly.
The principal told 10 News, "She told us everything
and was very honest. She didn't run or try to hide the truth. We had a long conversation with her."
So: No one was hurt. There's no sign that Wilmot was up to something malevolent. The kid's own principal thinks this wasn't anything more than an experiment, and he says she didn't try to cover up what she had done. What punishment do you think she received? A stern talking-to? A day or two of after-school detention? Maybe she'll have to help clean up the lab for a week?
Nope. The budding chemist has been kicked out of school and charged with a couple of felonies:
Wilmot was arrested Monday morning and charged with possession/discharge of a weapon on school property and discharging a destructive device.The teen was expelled and will now complete her education in an expulsion program.
Miami New Times reports that Wilmot will be tried as an adult.
A statement from Polk County Schools says, "We urge our parents to join us in conveying the message that there are consequences to actions. We will not compromise the safety and security of our students and staff." As far as I can tell, the only person in this story facing a serious threat to her safety and security is the girl who might have to serve a prison sentence – but then, she doesn't go to Bartow High anymore, so perhaps the school system doesn't think she counts.
Bonus link: "5 Ridiculous School Security Scares."
Update: Three more details in this story from the Lakeland Ledger: She mixed the chemicals outside rather than indoors, she didn't leave the area afterwards, and according to police she "said she thought the materials would produce only smoke, not an explosion."
Update #2: The New Times has acquired the police report and posted it here, along with the school district's not-at-all-persuasive defense of its actions.
I sincerely can't imagine what it must be like to be a student in the American (or any other Western) school system today. Or, more to the point, how skewed my world view would be upon finally escaping the halls of academia.
Moving past the conventional path as it relates to education and careers, let's take a brief look at some other areas of life where each of us have been trained like circus dogs to do one thing, but where we might want to consider going our own way instead.
Other Chains of Convention
Geography/Nationalism – In no small part due to the propaganda that dominates curriculum, the accident of your birth within certain invisible lines on the map will, for most, cause them to adopt a credo of nationalism. It is very much the same way that people in Boston will, by default, support the Red Sox and not the team from some other city, no matter how worthy. Solely because of geography, people will even stick with teams such as the Chicago Cubs, which made losing an art form.
While I could attempt to dissect this particular human characteristic, in the interest of brevity – something I struggle with – I will cut to the point. And the point is that adopting the notion that "My nation above all" despite clear evidence to the alternative is a harmful fiction, as it roots you in place and makes you believe that there is no place better suited for the life you aspire to live. In addition, depending on the nation you lock yourself into, your (largely unconscious) decision to be nationalistic can cause you to be subjected to the military draft, confiscatory levels of taxation and limits on fundamental liberties.
The alternative is as simple as accepting your place of birth as the accident it was. In that context, it might be useful for you to list all the attributes that would make a country best suited to living a fulfilled life as you define it. With list in hand, you have a starting point for your research which, in time, should include jumping on a plane to see the candidates with your own eyes. That's really the only way to find your own special place in this world.
And, per the earlier example of Nancy, don't think you can’t do it… you can.
(One helpful resource for your prognostications is our recently concluded webinar, Internationalizing Your Assets, featuring Doug Casey, Peter Schiff, Mike Maloney and Kevin Brekke. As an aside, for those of you interested in what's going on here in Cafayate, there's also a segment featuring yours truly wandering around the place. Watch the entire webinar, free of charge, by clicking here.)
Religion – The notion that a person must worship a deity is, in most cases, relatively harmless. There's nothing in the least wrong with coming together with neighbors to meditate, sing and listen to homilies and simple morality tales. That this coming together is wrapped in the cloak of religion is, at least to my way of thinking, irrelevant. But when your culture makes it conventional to follow lockstep in the dogma of a religion, then the negative aspects of that religion can weigh heavily on living a fulfilled life.
For examples of what I'm talking about, look no further than Salem, Massachusetts circa 1692 or Saudi Arabia circa today.
And it doesn't even have to be as extreme as that. A close relative, though living hand to mouth, got sucked up in a fundamentalist church that very efficiently lifted about 15% of his meager income off of him. Fortunately, after several years of being drained like a Masai cow, he came to his senses after the suntanned preacher made the mistake of regaling the struggling flock with happy tales of his two-week Hawaiian holiday.
Another friend of ours – an attractive and otherwise intelligent young woman – has adopted religious dogma to such an extent that every suitor is quickly chased away, even though it is her fondest dream to marry and have children. Meanwhile, her biological clock is close to striking midnight.
Now, I'm not saying you shouldn't believe in anything you want… if it makes you happy. But if your religion is causing you guilt, feelings of inadequacy, to accept being subservient (say, to your husband), forced to wear a tent or to be poor, then it's worth giving the whole matter a rethink. On that front, I found the rather controversially titled book God Wants You Dead by Sean Hastings and Paul Rosenberg to be well written and thought provoking.
Marriage – Personally, I find great comfort in marriage. I love my wife, and I love that we share our lives together. Yet, the conventional view that you have to stand in front of a representative of a religion from the Middle Ages, then register your vows with the state seems to me to be another thing altogether. As an alternative, why not draw up a fairly detailed cohabitation contract – one that specifies roles and responsibilities and the obligations each has to each other should one or the other party wish to terminate the contract? That would certainly be unconventional, but I think the actual exercise of thinking the thing through would be beneficial all the way around… certainly to the 50% or so whose conventional marriages ultimately fail.
I can't begin to count the number of people I know whose lives have been devastated by a bad marriage or the consequences of an angry divorce. The list of victims includes husbands or wives trapped (economically or emotionally) in loveless or abusive marriages…. woman with multiple children left high and dry by philandering husbands after years of marriage… men who have been wiped out financially by divorce settlements, then suffered terribly as the angry ex-spouse turned their kids against them…the list goes on.
In any event, the rationale for joining resources with someone you love is compelling. But the consequences of a marriage gone wrong – and they often go wrong – makes me believe there is much to be said for taking an unconventional view when it comes to cohabitation.
Investments – There is a conventional view of investing that generally revolves around pat formulas related to your age and the percentages of stocks and bonds you should own. Investment brokers and financial planners will convince you that the conservative, conventional path is the way to go. And to be fair, when in a secular bull market such as that which ended in 2000, such an approach is going to work out just fine.
But that was then, and this is now… a secular bear market with all the world's largest economies trapped between the anvil of massive government debts and the hammer of unrealistic societal expectations. Something is going to break. The government bank job in Cyprus is just the beginning, and we're nowhere near the end.
Not only is the conventional view that your government is on your side wrong, it is 180 degrees wrong: it's actively working against your interests by limiting your financial freedom, raising your taxes, planting the seeds for a devastating inflation and, almost certainly, in the not-too-distant future forcing you to hand your retirement funds over to government control.
And when the next big hit to the financial system occurs – and given the massive leverage, it could come any day – don't think your "trusted" financial institution is going to have your back, or your money, either.
On the matter of leverage, get a load of this chart… watch out below.
While each of us has to figure out the investment strategies that are right for us, for some time my personal strategy has been focused on spreading our investments across different asset classes, in different institutions, in different political jurisdictions.
With the precious-metals component recently topped off with the bargains created by the flash crash, my latest investment is in productive agricultural land in a business-friendly nation here in the Southern Cone.
While an unconventional investment, the fact that the land is fully paid for and already throwing off a rate of return well above what you could expect in a conventional investment makes it hugely attractive just now. No matter what happens with the electronic markets, that land will still be intact.
Summing up briefly, because we have a long guest article this week, I would say that it behooves us all to periodically stop and examine our life path. What's missing in your life? What seemingly never gets fixed, and unfixed, makes your unhappy or unfulfilled? On examination, you may find that the problem is that you are adhering to convention, and doing so at great personal cost.
Nancy did something that probably not one in a half a million people in her circumstances would have done – break the chains of convention and set out to enjoy the remaining years of what is likely to be a much longer life as a free and independent woman.
I sincerely hope that all of you dear readers are not trapped by convention, or if you are that you won't waste a minute more following a life path set out for you by some institution.
And with that, I want to share what will seem to many – especially those dear readers in Europe – the controversial views of friend Marc Victor, a libertarian criminal defense lawyer who does daily battle in defense of basic liberties. In this case, he defends the right of Americans to own assault rifles.I Am a Peaceful AR-15 Assault Rifle Owner
Marc Victor, Attorney"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurances and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." George Washington
I can't think of any reason I need to own my AR-15 assault[1] rifle. I don't pretend to need it for self defense. I also own several handguns. Any one of my handguns would be adequate to allow me an opportunity to defend myself, or another person, from virtually any act of aggression by another individual. Indeed, I could have easily halted any of the recent gun based rampages, by any of those deranged lunatics, with just one of my handguns. I wish I had been there.
I have needlessly and peacefully owned my AR-15 for many years. I keep my AR-15 securely locked in a gun safe in the very same home where my young children live. My children are aware of my AR-15. Like many other things in life, I have taught my children about guns.
Recently, some of my kids attended a private gun safety class given by a highly experienced gun expert. I enjoyed watching my kids learn about my AR-15. I admit being a bit nostalgic about my AR-15. I spent lots of time learning about every aspect of the AR-15 when I was in Marine Corps boot camp at Parris Island, South Carolina. I also carried an AR-15 when I served my country in Operation Desert Storm in Saudi Arabia. I had it with me when I lived in a dirt hole on the border of Kuwait. It is the weapon I know better than any other.
I own lots of dangerous things I don't need. I don't need my highly modified 600+ hp Z06 Corvette, or my Harley Davidson motorcycle, or that crazy looking knife I sometimes jokingly say was imported directly from the Klingon Empire.[2] All of these things can be used, intentionally or accidentally, to hurt others. Because I have always been careful, peaceful and responsible, none of the things I own have ever been used to hurt another person.[3]
I am an American. As such, none of my rights depend on a showing of need. I am a free man who has the right to define and pursue my happiness in any peaceful way I see fit. The government does not grant me rights. I was born free. The legitimate role of government is to act as my agent to protect my rights, which exist independent of government. Americans do not beg the government for rights nor are they required to demonstrate a "need" for rights.
I cherish lots of my rights for which I can't demonstrate any need. I don't need the right to say highly offensive things to another person. Although I generally don't try to offend other people, I cherish my right to do so. I also cherish, and would aggressively defend, your right to say highly offensive things to me. Defending the rights of people to say things most people agree with is entirely unimpressive. Liberty must always be defended at the edge.
As a criminal defense attorney, I seek out unpopular clients. When I represented Elizabeth Johnson in what is sometimes referred to as the "Baby Gabriel" case, one of the things that attracted me to the idea of representing her was the fact that she was hugely unpopular. Defending the right to a fair trial starts with the unpopular client.
Although I never have anything to hide, I cherish my 4th Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. I would never consent to a warrantless government search. Opportunities to defend the 4th Amendment usually arise in cases where people are engaging in some type of criminal activity. The cost of defending our rights in this area sometimes results in dangerous criminals going free. I frequently advocate for our right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures on behalf of people who think nothing of trespassing on others. Indeed, I always advocate for the right to refuse searches in cases where there is nothing to hide. Protecting liberty in hard cases requires the work of the most committed liberty-minded Americans.
Government never has a more tempting opportunity to increase its size, power and scope, and to curtail the liberties of free people, than during or immediately after a crisis. Indeed, crisis is so tempting an opportunity for government that governments invent crisis whenever possible. This is why "emergency acts" and "wars" on anyone and anything are so popular for governments. Nothing entices people to stop thinking, act impulsively, and to relinquish liberties so easily as a "crisis" or a "tragedy" or an "emergency." We need to be smarter if liberty is to survive.
Our world is unfortunately filled with real tragedies. The recent school shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary in Connecticut, orchestrated by a deranged lunatic with several guns, was one of the worst tragedies I have seen in my life. However, because of the magnitude of this tragedy, much like the September 11 tragedy, it presents an almost unprecedented opportunity for government to curtail liberty. Don't be fooled!
Banning Guns Is Un-American and Immoral
"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …" Samuel Adams
The right to peacefully own a gun is such an important and fundamental American concept that it was enshrined in the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution. Millions of peaceful Americans own guns for various reasons, none of which need to be justified to the government or anyone else. Peaceful people owning guns is not a problem needing a solution. Countless Americans will peacefully own and even use their AR-15 weapons today without incident.
Ignoring the obvious Constitutional problems with simply banning guns, such action would require immorally initiating force against peaceful people. People who abhor guns have no right to impose their will on peaceful gun owners. So long as peaceful gun ownership poses no harm or substantial risk of harm to others, it ought to be a protected activity like all other peaceful activities conducted by competent adults.
Attempting to punish everyone for the acts of one or several deranged lunatics is immoral. Like most AR-15 owners, my AR-15 ownership has always been peaceful. Seeking to deprive me of my AR-15 because others have irresponsibly used theirs is akin to revoking my driver's license because others have irresponsibly driven drunk, resulting in tragedy. People need to be held accountable for their own actions, but not for the actions of others.
The Idea of Banning Guns Is Foolishness
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Ben Franklin
It is estimated there are approximately 300 million guns in the United States. I suspect that estimate is conservative. The nature of criminals is such that they do not comply with the law. As such, we can predict, with absolute certainty, that the violent criminals who currently possess guns will not comply with any law requiring them to relinquish their guns. Additionally, I suspect many peaceful gun owners would similarly never comply with any law requiring them to relinquish their guns. As such, any law banning guns would be entirely ineffective and would actually make matters worse. All peaceful law-abiding gun owners would be disarmed and more vulnerable to violent criminals.
We already have laws absolutely prohibiting convicted felons from possessing guns. As a criminal defense attorney, I regularly represent such people deemed "prohibited possessors" for the crime of simply possessing guns. Nobody working in the criminal justice system could seriously assert that laws banning guns for felons have been successful. A deranged lunatic named William Spengler ambushed and murdered two firemen in upstate New York on December 24, 2012. He was a "prohibited possessor" who previously served 17 years in prison. The law absolutely banned him from having guns. He had several. Thankfully, Mr. Spengler terminated his killing spree by shooting himself after being confronted and engaged by an off duty armed police officer who happened to be present. There is no doubt many more would have been murdered had an armed man not been present.
Even if we strained our imaginations to think banning guns could result in abolishing all guns currently in existence, a gun ban would still be futile. If the failed war on drugs has taught us anything, it is that making something illegal, when there still exists a demand for the illegal item, absolutely results in a lucrative black market. There is no doubt a lucrative, vibrant, and violent black market in guns will immediately grow to whatever size is necessary to manufacture and supply violent criminals with guns. Such violent criminals would be enticed to engage in even more criminal endeavors knowing their law-abiding victims are entirely unable to defend themselves against such aggressions.
Whether we like the conclusion or not, like marijuana, guns are here to stay. The facts of reality are such that bad guys with guns are an unfortunate fact of life. Our focus should be on how we deal with this fact rather than wishing the fact was otherwise.
Gun Regulations Never Reduce Gun Violence and Usually Increase Violent Crime
"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … " Thomas Jefferson
I realize it seems counterintuitive, but it is true. The same unintended results occur in many other contexts as well. Just like minimum wage and rent control laws hurt the poor,[4] banning alcohol results in more alcohol-related problems,[5] raising taxes sometimes results in less revenue for the government,[6] government spending results in fewer jobs,[7] banning guns usually increases gun violence and never reduces it.
The examples of gun control resulting in increased gun violence are easy to find. In 1976, after Washington D.C. instituted the toughest gun control laws in our nation, its murder rate increased dramatically during a time when the nation’s overall gun related murder rate decreased by 2%. Washington D.C., the nation's leader in gun control, became known as the nation's murder capital.[8] A comparison of states which allow legally concealed guns to states which outlaw concealed carrying of firearms reveals no difference in overall gun-related violence.
In 1982, when Kennesaw, Georgia passed a law requiring a firearm in every home, not only did crime not escalate, but violent crime sharply decreased[9] and has remained that way for decades. Indeed, Kennesaw, Georgia claims to have the lowest crime rate of any comparable city its size in the nation.
These counterintuitive results are not limited to examples within the United States. Australia boldly banned all semi-automatic firearms, including many rifles and shotguns, in 1997. Indeed, it was a gun grabber's dream; approximately 640,000 firearms were confiscated and destroyed. This misguided Australian policy resulted in an armed robbery increase of 69%, an assault involving firearms increase of 28%, a gun-related murder increase of 19%, and a home invasion increase of 21%. Violent criminals love gun bans.
I realize the proponents of gun control also offer statistics. However, when our most respected, unbiased and professional scientific and research organizations analyze the issue, their conclusions do not support the gun control advocates. In 2004, the National Academy of Sciences reviewed 253 journal articles, 99 books and 43 government publications evaluating 80 gun-control measures. Researchers could not identify a single regulation that reduced violent crime, suicide or accidents.
In 2003, the Centers for Disease Control analyzed ammunition bans, restrictions on acquisition of firearms, waiting periods, registration, licensing, child access prevention and zero tolerance laws. After their analysis, the Centers for Disease Control concluded there was no conclusive evidence that any gun control laws reduced gun violence. Foreign researchers have also come to the same conclusion. In Australia in 2008, a peer reviewed study at the University of Sydney reached virtually the same conclusions as both the National Academy of Sciences and the Centers for Disease Control. Gun control measures simply do not reduce gun violence.
Although President Obama appears excited about the notion of banning guns, I have not heard him order a ban on the very guns used to protect him. Apparently, when it comes to his protection, President Obama prefers to be protected by people armed with guns. Indeed, I suspect none of these gun ban advocates would hesitate to call 911 and request help from people armed with guns if they were faced with an intruder in their homes in the middle of the night. I fail to understand why we can't all agree that guns save lives.
Our Culture of Violence
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" Benjamin Franklin
Unfortunately, we do have a culture of violence in America. It did not spontaneously arise. It is entirely our fault. There are several contributing factors.[10] The single biggest contributing factor to our culture of violence is that our society no longer adheres to the once basic notion that initiating force against non-aggressors is wrong. We no longer recognize the sovereignty of the individual. Our laws are replete with instances of legal trespass against peaceful people. Rather than living in a democratic republic where most decisions are left to the property[11] owner, we now have an unfettered democracy where anything goes so long as the majority of voters agree. This is not what was intended by the founders of our country, and it has no connection to freedom. Without freedom, there simply is no opportunity for peace.
Democracy and freedom are not the same. To some extent, they are incompatible. Freedom requires that the owner retains jurisdiction over his or her own body, time, money and other property. Democracy puts the voting majority in charge of whatever is up for a vote. Said another way, democracy is akin to mob rule. At the infancy of our country, few things were subject to majority vote via democracy. Today, virtually anything and everything can be put to a vote. The jurisdiction of government has far exceeded anything envisioned by our founding fathers.
The drug war is a fundamental example of government, or the voting majority, immorally exercising its jurisdiction over the bodies of competent adults. Despite the laws, many competent adults insist on controlling their own bodies. This has dramatically increased the amount of violence and conflict in our society. Indeed, until the drug war ends and we once again start respecting the sovereignty of the individual, there is nothing that can be done to effectively end the culture of violence destroying our society. The good news is that by simply ending the drug war, we can immediately and dramatically reduce the culture of violence.
To be sure, few countries have such an intense war on drugs as we have in the United States. Indeed, our drug laws are entirely draconian, and we imprison far more people than any other country in the world. Our spending on the drug war will soon be approaching 100 billion dollars per year. As a result of all this drug war generated violence, we have a very high corresponding rate of gun violence. I have personally represented many clients charged with violent gun related crimes resulting from drug war related issues. Indeed, much of the gun related violence I see, as a criminal defense attorney working in the justice system for the past two decades, stems from the drug war.
The United States does not have the highest rate of gun violence in the world. It should not be a surprise that several countries at the forefront of the drug war have an even higher rate of gun related homicide than the United States. The firearm related homicide rate, as a percentage of population, is higher in Mexico, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala and Paraguay. The United States spends millions of dollars ramping up the drug war in these countries. There is no doubt that several other drug war involved countries have even higher firearm related homicide rates than the United States as well.
I would be remiss if I failed to point out that these awful homicide rates in other countries persist despite much stricter gun control laws than in the United States. Indeed, Mexico has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world. Its laws effectively prohibit gun ownership. Not only do guns remain widely available in Mexico, but their gun related homicide rate outpaces ours. The same can be said of all these drug war countries.
Attempting to blame our culture of violence on the availability of guns is entirely erroneous. Canada has a gun culture similar to the United States. Indeed, their ratio of gun ownership as compared to the United States is roughly equivalent. However, Canada enjoys a firearm related homicide rate dramatically lower than in the United States. It is noteworthy to point out that people who live in countries like Switzerland and Israel have greater access to even fully automatic weapons and have higher rates of gun ownership than in the United States, but enjoy much lower firearm related homicide rates. The number of guns simply isn't the problem.
Our culture of violence is more directly attributable to anti-freedom government policies which diminish and disrespect the rights of the individual. Guns, like other tools, can be used for both good and bad purposes. Demonizing the tool, while piling on more anti-freedom regulations and laws, without getting to the root cause of the violence, is exactly the wrong approach. We will never achieve a more peaceful society until we recognize that competent adults own themselves and the drug war is reduced to an awful historical mistake.
How to Stop a Bad Guy with a Gun
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." Richard Henry Lee
Dangerous, violent people should not have guns. Additionally, people should not shoplift. We already have laws against both. Notwithstanding our laws, dangerous, violent people continue to, and always will be able to, obtain guns. Likewise, people continue to shoplift. Regarding the shoplifting problem, major retailers have accepted that shoplifting remains a fact of life and they have endeavored to combat the problem with private security guards, cameras, RFID chips, etc. As I often represent such people accused of shoplifting, I know these rational combative measures against shoplifting are reasonably successful.
As a society, we need to accept the reality that bad guys will continue to get guns notwithstanding our laws. We need to devise appropriate, rational and effective measures to combat this foreseeable reality. Well-intentioned and famous Hollywood actors simply saying, "Never Again!" or simply passing more gun regulation laws will not combat the problem.
As the tragic shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut proves, the passing of more laws is entirely the wrong approach. Federal law prohibits the presence of guns in schools. It is clear the deranged Mr. Adam Lanza was entirely undeterred by this federal law. Indeed, this law may have encouraged Mr. Lanza to work his horrific violence at the Sandy Hook Elementary School knowing federal law provides that nobody could have the capacity to stop him. One unintended consequence of this federal law has been to create a guaranteed victim zone, comprised of children who are unprotected sitting ducks for any deranged lunatic such as Mr. Lanza.
Additionally, Connecticut's gun control laws also proved to be entirely ineffective. By stealing his mother's gun, Mr. Lanza exempted himself from any laws regarding background checks, waiting periods, permits, licenses, etc. Neither unarmed security at the front door nor the presence of heroic yet unarmed adults at the school had any chance of stopping Mr. Lanza's murderous rampage. Even the courageous school principal, who dashed toward Mr. Lanza in a heroic effort to protect her innocent students, had absolutely no chance and was therefore also tragically murdered.
There can be no legitimate criticism of the local police. Their trained and armed police officers arrived as quickly as one could reasonably expect upon learning of the tragedy. However, by the time they arrived, the incident was completely over. They were not able to save even one life. The only thing that stopped the deranged Mr. Lanza was the deranged Mr. Lanza himself. One can only wonder how many more lives would have been needlessly taken had Mr. Lanza decided to continue shooting others rather than shoot himself.
I wish I could have been there that day with my AR-15 rifle or even my .40 caliber handgun. This story would have had a different ending. What a shame that not even one peaceful, responsible, trained and armed teacher or parent could have been present, when Mr. Lanza arrived, to do the one thing that actually could have avoided this tragedy: shoot him. I can say, with absolute certainty, that one well-placed round from a gun could have saved the lives of everyone at the Sandy Hook Elementary that day.
I don't know if that well-placed round would have been the first shot fired, but I do know at least there would have been a chance to stop Mr. Lanza before he decided to stop himself. As a parent of five children in school, I prefer that my children are no longer unprotected sitting ducks at a federally mandated gun-free zone in school. The only way to stop these types of gun related tragedies is by force.
I recognize that some parents feel differently than I do. For reasons I do not understand, they prefer to have their children at school totally unprotected in federally mandated gun-free zones. I respect their rights to have their children at schools which comply with whatever rules they deem appropriate. However, the current state of federal law prohibits parents from choosing schools which could actually protect their children against the horrendous acts of deranged bad guys like Mr. Lanza. Just like at my home, I would prefer to have my kids in schools where responsible adults, with adequate training, have immediate and safe access to firearms. I, like many parents, don't want my kids to be unprotected sitting ducks while they are at school.
I fail to understand why the anti-gun people find it appropriate to thwart my choice as a responsible parent. As I have stated, I respect the rights of the anti-gun parents to send their kids to schools without guns. I have heard their protestations that my plan to have armed people at school would not work. I don't know why their judgment should be substituted for mine regarding the safety of my kids.
Some of those parents claim that armed people at the school could make no difference if such a shooting was to occur. They are entirely wrong. There are many examples of occasions where armed people successfully terminated some deranged person's gun rampage. Here is a short list of some notable examples compiled by the Libertarian Party:
* A 1997 high school shooting in Pearl, Mississippi was halted by the school's vice principal after he retrieved the Colt .45 he kept in his truck.
* A 1998 middle school shooting ended when a man living next door heard gunfire and apprehended the shooter with his shotgun.
* A 2002 terrorist attack at an Israeli school was quickly stopped by an armed teacher and a school guard.
* A 2002 law school shooting in Grundy, Virginia came to an abrupt conclusion when students carrying firearms confronted the shooter.
* A 2007 mall shooting in Ogden, Utah ended when an armed off-duty police officer intervened.
* A 2009 workplace shooting in Houston, Texas was halted by two coworkers who carried concealed handguns.
* A 2012 church shooting in Aurora, Colorado was stopped by a member of the congregation carrying a gun.
* At the recent mall shooting in Portland, Oregon the gunman took his own life minutes after being confronted by a shopper carrying a concealed weapon.
Moreover, the Internet is full of videos documenting peaceful armed people thwarting a violent criminal's attempt to victimize others.[12] I fail to understand why the anti-gun crowd refuses to acknowledge guns save lives. It is estimated, and there are several scholarly studies to support, that guns are used to prevent crimes between 700,000 and 2.5 million times each year.[13] While I agree there are examples of bad guys doing bad things with guns, we should also agree there are millions of armed good guys who successfully and frequently stop bad guys with guns as well.
Three Reasons Americans Have a Right to Own Guns
"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" Patrick Henry
There are three main reasons why Americans, or any free people, should have a right to keep and bear firearms. First, free people have a right to self defense. This is the most basic of all rights. Although government can legitimately act as one's agent to assist in protecting against another's aggression, the individual need not delegate or rely upon another person or entity for the exercise of that right. To deny a free and competent adult the right of self defense is to deny such a person their sovereignty. No society can be considered a free society, or even a civilized society, without the basic right to individual defense of one's self.
The second reason for a right to keep and bear arms is to deter possible foreign invasions. I acknowledge we live in a world where mass destruction is an option for many foreign governments. However, history has shown that foreign governments generally like to advance on territory they seek to make their own. As such, a radioactive wasteland is not the preferred trophy of most hostile governments.
During World War II, Hitler's Germany advanced against much of Europe. However, Switzerland, despite its vast gold resources making it an extraordinary prize, was not one of those places advanced upon by Hitler. One rational explanation for this lack of aggression by Hitler was the reasonable conclusion that Switzerland, with its exceptionally high proportion of civilian gun ownership, would have been an unusually difficult target.
During the same time period, it is speculated that Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto reached a similar conclusion regarding a possible invasion of the United States. Some have attributed the comment, "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass" to the Japanese Admiral.[14] Given our high proportion of civilian gun ownership, it also seems a reasonable conclusion.
Indeed, it gives me a sense of pride, as I know it does many other veterans and other proud Americans, to know that in the unlikely event our country ever was invaded, we would not need to sit idly by, helpless, to assist in defending our country. Rather, much like the other civilian militia that was so instrumental in assisting to win our independence from King George III, we may also be able to assist in some way.
The third reason for a right to keep and bear arms is, as Thomas Jefferson stated, "The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Citizens have a right to keep and bear arms as a defense against their own government. Further, Mr. Jefferson also stated, "When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty."
The founders of our nation believed people must always preserve their right to resistance and revolution against their own government. "And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson.
The founding fathers of our nation were keenly aware of the potential for governments to ban guns, then curtail liberty, enslave, torture or even murder their own naïve and trusting citizens. One can only wonder what the founding fathers would say had they been aware of the human slaughter suffered in the 20th century by unarmed people at the hands of their own gun grabbing governments.
In the 20th century alone, the death toll resulting from governments murdering their own disarmed citizens after guns were legally banned is estimated at 56 million.[15] Our founding fathers knew any government, including ours, has the potential to become tyrannical and even deadly towards its own citizens. I suspect many or even most of those 56 million murdered by their own governments believed their government could always be trusted. Let's learn from history.
"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." Samuel Adams.
As an aside, Marc Victor has agreed to join the faculty for the 2013 Casey Research Summit, being held October 4-6 in Tucson, Arizona. As this will be the only Casey Research summit held this year, we're going all out to make it spectacular. On that front, next week we'll have big news on the faculty. Watch your email for more.
[1] Rifles don't "assault" people. People assault people. Calling the AR-15 an "assault" rifle is inflammatory. I have been known to sometimes choose inflammatory titles for my articles. Like any other weapon, the AR-15 should be used solely for defensive purposes. I suspect the vast majority of people who own them, intend to use them only defensively.
[2] See Star Trek.
[3] I realize there are some things I could own which, by their very nature, cannot be owned by me in a community without posing a substantial risk of harm to others. Reasonable people can disagree about what things truly and honestly fit into this category.
[4] See http://cameroneconomics.com/Books/unintendedconsequences.pdf
[5] See http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa157.pdf
[6] See the Laffer curve. Higher taxes inhibit economic growth and encourage people to conduct business in the black market. I am never in favor of higher taxes, and I always favor less revenue for the government.
[7] For a short video on this point, see http://www.cato.org/multimedia/cato-video/government-spending-doesnt-create-jobs
[8] See http://gunowners.org/sk0601.htm for an interesting but informal investigation into the efficacy of Washington D.C.'s gun control efforts.
[9] Kennesaw City officials claim an 89% drop in the overall crime rate.
[10] We have too many absentee parents. A cradle-to-grave government does not replace a set of involved parents. Our society is too desensitized to violence and wars and not interested enough in fostering peace. We have strayed from the old-school values of hard work, individual responsibility, honesty, integrity, discipline, tolerance, patience and respect. The government can't fix this problem.
[11] I refer to "property" in its most general sense to include one's body, money, possessions and time.
[12] For one example that occurred on July 13, 2012, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpBXkvigads I enjoyed watching how fast the two armed bad guys scrambled to leave when the senior citizen with the handgun emerged to protect everyone present. I bet the other people were glad this peaceful and heroic man thought to bring his loaded firearm. We can only wonder what tragedy was avoided that day.
[13] See Armed: New Perspectives on Gun Control, New York: Prometheus Books (2001) Kleck and Kates.
[14] There is some controversy regarding the legitimacy of this quotation. However, the fact remains that a high proportion of civilian gun ownership may have discouraged the Japanese and would certainly act as a deterrent to any potential invading force.
[15] The Soviets murdered 20 million from 1929-1953; the Chinese murdered 20 million from 1948-1952; the Germans murdered 13 million from 1939-1945; the Turkish murdered 1.5 million from 1915-1915.Friday Funny
After months of legislating soda sizes and steak rareness, it seems the food police have finally met their match. As The Daily Currant "reports," in protest over the proposed soda ban in NY, the owners of Collegno's Pizzeria in Brooklyn refused to serve Mayor Michael Bloomberg a second slice of pizza during an informal lunch meeting. Ripped from the scripts of Seinfeld, or Pulp Fiction, or, appropriately enough, The Onion, when Bloomberg requested the second slice, the owner retorted, "I'm sorry sir, we can't do that. You've reached your personal slice limit." The exchange quickly escalated, with the Mayor dropping f-bombs and the restaurant's owner climaxing with, "There's nothing I can do; maybe you could go to several restau rants and get one slice at each. At least that way you're walking. You know, burning calories." A fuming Bloomberg left the pizzeria and finished his meeting (and more pizza) at a rival restaurant.
Via The Daily Currant:
"Hey, could I get another pepperoni over here?" Bloomberg asked owner Antonio Benito.
"I'm sorry sir," he repli
(Message over 64 KB, truncated)
The best part was about Bloomberg and the pizza, but unfortunately satire: http://www.snopes.com/politics/satire/bloombergpizza.asp.
Thanks, Nina. The article is not just about ex-pats, but so much more if one does read it all the way to the end as you indicated. Great points about accepting roles "society" give you, miserable indoctrination in schools, confusion between democracy and freedom, a sensible approach to the 2nd Amendment, etc. I think we libertarians need to do more than we do now to counter all the confusion of values and choices reigning these days by reaching out to the general public with good material such as in this article. Thanks again.
Marcy
I agree there's some great material here, including some excellent thoughts on nationalism that very much mirror my own:
"In no small part due to the propaganda that dominates curriculum, the accident of your birth within certain invisible lines on the map will, for most, cause them to adopt a credo of nationalism. It is very much the same way that people in Boston will, by default, support the Red Sox and not the team from some other city, no matter how worthy. Solely because of geography, people will even stick with teams such as the Chicago Cubs, which made losing an art form.
While I could attempt to dissect this particular human characteristic, in the interest of brevity – something I struggle with – I will cut to the point. And the point is that adopting the notion that "My nation above all" despite clear evidence to the alternative is a harmful fiction, as it roots you in place and makes you believe that there is no place better suited for the life you aspire to live. In addition, depending on the nation you lock yourself into, your (largely unconscious) decision to be nationalistic can cause you to be subjected to the military draft, confiscatory levels of taxation and limits on fundamental liberties.
The alternative is as simple as accepting your place of birth as the accident it was. In that context, it might be useful for you to list all the attributes that would make a country best suited to living a fulfilled life as you define it."
Too bad the anecdote about mayor Bloomberg and the pizza is satire -- too good to be true, apparently. Wouldn't that episode be priceless to have on video? Maybe some libertarians could film it with a Bloomberg look-alike. Paging Alton Yee and the Manhattan LP!
Thanks for sharing, Nina.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
I love Doug Casey
s work, but this article was one for subscribers.
Personally, I think it was a violation of your agreement with doug, and would appreciate if you read the last paragraph to make sure that you do not distribute subscriber only work in the future.
phil
When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants and murderers, and for a time, they can seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall. Think of it–always.
–Mahatma Ghandi
Phil,
So I scrolled to the end with curiosity tofind this:
"And with that dear reader, I will take my leave for the week,
apologizing for going on quite so long. I hope that you have found
today's edition of "The Room" worth your while and, if so, feel free to
pass it along."
At the risk of questioning your motives, where are going with the false notion there would be a violation of agreement by a subscriber, in passing this article along.
What is it, you would appreciate and why?
John
________________________________
From: Phil Berg <philzberg@...>
To: "lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com" <lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 4, 2013 9:18 PM
Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Chains of ConventionI love Doug Casey
s work, but this article was one for subscribers.Personally, I think it was a violation of your agreement with doug, and would appreciate if you read the last paragraph to make sure that you do not distribute subscriber only work in the future.
phil
When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants and murderers, and for a time, they can seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall. Think of it–always.
–Mahatma GhandiMore than a destination, ex-pat is a state of mind. The Founders were ex-pats, but they didn't go anywhere. This article mentions the tremendous benefits to health and well being.
This idea is central to the Western Association.
________________________________
From: Nina Ortega <ortegan@...>
To: bayareapatriots2@yahoogroups.com; lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, May 4, 2013 7:53 AM
Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Chains of ConventionThis edition is excellent ALL THE WAY TO THE END. - Nina
If you are unable to view this email, please read it online.
May 3, 2013
The Room with David GallandToday's Edition
-
- Chains of Convention
-
- I Am a Peaceful AR-15 Assault Rifle Owner
-
- Friday Funny
-
- Miscellany
-
print email facebook twitter
--
Sign Up Now
Get Casey Daily Dispatch delivered to your inbox
Sign Up
Chains of ConventionDear Reader,
I apologize if I wax a bit philosophically. There's something about living in a remote paradise disconnected from the constant blare of newsertainment that lends itself to pondering topics other than sports scores or the latest BIG THREAT.
The topic for today's missive came to mind while reflecting on the rather unconventional actions of a fellow resident here at La Estancia de Cafayate. For our purposes, we'll call her "Nancy." Nancy moved down here around the same time as we did – about six and a half months ago. (Quick aside to Nancy: If you read this and surmise your role in today's musings, please accept my apology in advance for any descriptors used that you take issue with).
While the average age of the owners here is quite young – about 50 – Nancy is somewhat older than that. Without being specific, she is of an age that some would describe as the "golden years": the years when one is expected to begin edging tentatively toward the rocker in front of the fire and all that.
Somewhat remarkably, before arriving in Cafayate Nancy had very little international travel experience and spoke no Spanish whatsoever. Further complicating her move, she doesn't drive a car.
Yet, one day she showed up, escorted by a relative who barely let the door close on her newly rented home before rushing back to the airport for the flight home.
If I were a betting man (and on the occasion of the Friday night poker games hereabouts, I am), on meeting Nancy I would have waged a considerable amount she wouldn't stick. Considering her age, her lack of international experience, lack of the local language, lack of basic transport, how could I have bet otherwise?
Initially, I would have thought my bet safe, especially after running into her at the clubhouse on the edge of tears, struggling with the help of the concierge to figure out how to navigate the somewhat complex Argentine financial system to pay her local bills.
To the surprise of pretty much everyone, however, she slowly emerged from the role which society (and perhaps her family) had cast her in back in the United States… the role of an individual on the steep downslope of life, her productive career finished and her future a slow wind down towards invisibility, first figuratively and then literally.
Yesterday, I ran into her in town, where she was touring around a young couple from New Zealand and their four-year-old son, who have taken up residence here for six months. Literally transformed, exuding confidence and a new found appreciation for herself, Nancy glows with the vibrant energy of life well lived. I understand she is looking to renew the lease on her rental house for three more years.
This transformation is the rule and not the exception. Another resident (now on the HOA board) arrived overweight and stressed. Today he could pose for ads showing middle-aged men with washboard abs. Another resident, my regular golf partner, tells me that before moving here he was always angry (mainly at the stupidity of government), but now you'd never know it, because it seems he never stops laughing.
The list of examples goes on. Personally, I have lost at least 15 pounds, no longer take the blood pressure medicine I was taking on arrival and am brimming with energy and a deep-felt happiness.
It was reflecting on the transformation that Nancy and most of us now living here – at least the ones who have stuck (and for a variety of reasons, not everyone has) – have gone through that the topic of today's missive came to mind.
Before moving on, I want to share a link to the fantastic song I'm currently listening to. As background, my dear partner Doug Casey and I concur on most movies and some music, the exception in the case of the former being The Thirteenth Warrior, a movie Doug loves for reasons that remain a mystery to me. In the case of music, Doug's favorite songstress is Nina Simone whom, while I find okay, is generally too old school for me – with the shining exception of her song Sinnerman, the full-length version of which I have been listening to on a loop this morning.Chains of Convention
David Galland, Managing DirectorIn a past edition of these musings, I shared my opinion that anyone still thinking the American Dream is alive and well was probably in for a bitter disappointment.
The experience of Nancy here in Cafayate has only strengthened that opinion. Instead of bowing to convention – i.e., lying down in a rut while waiting for it to be filled in as a grave – she made a decision to radically alter her life path by packing her suitcases and moving to a new life in northwest Argentina.
The only regret she probably has is that she didn't make a similarly big move when younger.
The problem, in my view, is that the current paradigm most people follow is a fiction, a construct made by the establishment to produce what might be termed "productive members of society."
But productive for whom? And in what form does this productivity take? A mule, for example, is considered productive only when pulling a plow or carrying a rider across difficult terrain – clearly work not suitable for you or me.
In my view, a productive human is someone who gets up in the morning, works at something they love and strives toward personal goals while saving more than they spend in order to remain independent and not a burden on family or society.
Yet following the path set out in the current paradigm for the "model citizen" will lead, for most, to an entirely different outcome.
The trailhead for the path of "citizen" begins by one studying at a public school (or a private school that adheres to a public-school curriculum, as most do), in the process being indoctrinated with all sorts of unscientific and unsound concepts… from political correctness, to obedience to the state, to the dire risks to our environment from evil capitalists, etc., ad nauseam.
Once you've graduated high school with all sorts of bad ideas, you're expected to continue your education with a university degree – any will major do – which for most means becoming oppressively indebted and facing a decade or more of crushing payments.
For the record, according to the Princeton Review, the top ten majors in the US are, in descending order:
1. Business administration. Of some general use, though most graduates with this degree will end up working as restaurant managers.
2. Psychology. For a civilization in the grips of a mass psychosis, perhaps of some value, but I wouldn't count on it.
3. Nursing. Considering the aging population, which ensures steady demand and therefore above-average salaries, not a bad choice, provided you don't mind the rather messy aspects of the job or being exposed to the latest germs.
4. Biology/biological sciences. Finally something to sink the teeth into, although for most the career path probably leads to standing in front of a classroom full of dozing teenagers.
5. Education. Here's where things start to get really challenging, given the low pay scale and overabundance of teachers that ensures the pay scale remains low. Then there's the whole dealing with the truly warped mentality overhanging today's educational system, dominated as it is by insane government mandates resulting in mindless political correctness, bad science, regular lock-downs, drugged children, etc. I know someone with a master's degree in education who has to drive almost two hours each way in order to work at something that pays close to minimum wage.
6. English language and literature. What's the right English phrase for "Good luck paying off your student loans"?
7. Economics. Anyone who chooses to go into debt to get a degree in economics should, by definition, be disqualified.
8. Communications studies. Make mine a Big Mac.
9. Political science and government. Certainly a growth industry, but with the exception of those at the top of the food chain, you'll be lucky to pull an average wage. If it's any consolation, you'll be able to feel self-important as you pontificate on how to solve the nation's problems by layering on yet more government.
10. Computer and Information Sciences. Though life in a cube holds no personal appeal, I suspect this is a field where you'd at least be able to earn enough to pay the interest on your debt.
So, there you find yourself on graduation day, university diploma in hand and in hock up to the top of your tasseled mortarboard. What's a person to do but get a job? If you're fortunate enough to actually find work, then the average starting salary for a college graduate in the US is $48,000. Not horrible.
Unfortunately, using a conservative calculation, you will then hand over a minimum of 33% of your income to the government in the form of taxes (federal and state income taxes, Social Security, Medicare, sales taxes, etc.), leaving you with $32,160 with which to service your student loan (on average, $1,800 per annum).
And of course, your living costs. The latest Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data has it that the average American spends $6,458 on food annually. Then there's clothes ($1,740); transportation ($8,293); entertainment ($2,572); personal insurance ($5,424); health care ($3,313); and miscellaneous ($5,102)… for a grand total of $34,702.
Let's recap:
Net salary = $32,160
Total expenses = $34,702
Balance: (2,542)
Whoops.
Of course, I generalize. For many people, the situation is much worse. One young American now knocking around Cafayate has, at the tender age of 25, student loan debt to the tune of $100,000 for a career she'll never pursue. And while some people will have learned personal restraint from caring parents and so carefully manage their credit, many more will throw caution to the wind in chasing after the latest hot consumer good, over-burdened credit card in hand.
The point I am trying to make is that following the conventional path – at least as far as education – will, for money, leave a person living pretty much hand to mouth. Is it any wonder that upwards of 40% of student loan debt is now in arrears?
And living hand to mouth will, for the vast majority, lock you into a career of convenience – i.e., the job you can get, not necessarily the job you actually want. Of course, the alpha types will keep an eye out for new and better opportunities, improving their skill sets through self-study and hard work so they'll be ready to jump when the opportunity arises. But the majority will settle into a job and, because they must, continue to work day after day not in the pursuit of some personal goal, but in the pursuit solely of a paycheck.
And that, dear readers, is what being a productive member of society means in the current context.
To me, it is akin to selling yourself into slavery.
And it's actually almost worse than that, because the academic curriculum in the Western economies has been usurped by the politicians and the perfect-worlders. So not only are most people not materially able to get ahead, but they can't think straight either. By that I mean their heads are so filled with propaganda about ginned-up threats that only the all-powerful state can solve, or counterproductive concepts about social justice and economics that when it comes time to separate fiction from fantasy, fiction usually wins out.
I well remember one young graduate proudly proclaiming himself as a Marxist over dinner. When pressed, it became clear he actually had zero idea of what being a Marxist actually meant, or the economic consequences of using the coercive power of the state in the attempt to level the economy.
And it's only going to get worse. In fact, everything you need to know about the future of American education, and by extension, America, can be found in this brief article that appeared on the always excellent Reason site.
Normally, I'd just drop in a quote and a link, but this is so outrageous, I'm pasting the whole thing here with full credit to Reason and Jesse Walker.
Zero Tolerance Watch: Teen Faces Felony Charges for Science Experiment
Jesse Walker, May 1, 2013, 9:45 am
Meet Kiera Wilmot, a 16-year-old student in Bartow, Florida. Before last week, Bartow High School Principal Ron Pritchard tells WTSP-TV, she had "never been in trouble before. Ever." But then, the station reports, she mix[ed] household chemicals in a tiny 8-ounce water bottle, causing the top to pop off, followed by billowing smoke in [a] small explosion.Wilmot's friends and classmates said it was "a science project gone bad, that she never meant to hurt anyone."
Even the teen's principal said, "She made a bad choice. Honestly, I don't think she meant to ever hurt anyone. She wanted to see what would happen [when the chemicals mixed] and was shocked by what it did. Her mother is shocked too."
The explosion happened around 7 a.m. Monday morning on school property, and no one was hurt. Staff, along with the school resource officer, acted quickly.
The principal told 10 News, "She told us everything
and was very honest. She didn't run or try to hide the truth. We had a long conversation with her."
So: No one was hurt. There's no sign that Wilmot was up to something malevolent. The kid's own principal thinks this wasn't anything more than an experiment, and he says she didn't try to cover up what she had done. What punishment do you think she received? A stern talking-to? A day or two of after-school detention? Maybe she'll have to help clean up the lab for a week?
Nope. The budding chemist has been kicked out of school and charged with a couple of felonies:
Wilmot was arrested Monday morning and charged with possession/discharge of a weapon on school property and discharging a destructive device.The teen was expelled and will now complete her education in an expulsion program.
Miami New Times reports that Wilmot will be tried as an adult.
A statement from Polk County Schools says, "We urge our parents to join us in conveying the message that there are consequences to actions. We will not compromise the safety and security of our students and staff." As far as I can tell, the only person in this story facing a serious threat to her safety and security is the girl who might have to serve a prison sentence – but then, she doesn't go to Bartow High anymore, so perhaps the school system doesn't think she counts.
Bonus link: "5 Ridiculous School Security Scares."
Update: Three more details in this story from the Lakeland Ledger: She mixed the chemicals outside rather than indoors, she didn't leave the area afterwards, and according to police she "said she thought the materials would produce only smoke, not an explosion."
Update #2: The New Times has acquired the police report and posted it here, along with the school district's not-at-all-persuasive defense of its actions.
I sincerely can't imagine what it must be like to be a student in the American (or any other Western) school system today. Or, more to the point, how skewed my world view would be upon finally escaping the halls of academia.
Moving past the conventional path as it relates to education and careers, let's take a brief look at some other areas of life where each of us have been trained like circus dogs to do one thing, but where we might want to consider going our own way instead.
Other Chains of Convention
Geography/Nationalism – In no small part due to the propaganda that dominates curriculum, the accident of your birth within certain invisible lines on the map will, for most, cause them to adopt a credo of nationalism. It is very much the same way that people in Boston will, by default, support the Red Sox and not the team from some other city, no matter how worthy. Solely because of geography, people will even stick with teams such as the Chicago Cubs, which made losing an art form.
While I could attempt to dissect this particular human characteristic, in the interest of brevity – something I struggle with – I will cut to the point. And the point is that adopting the notion that "My nation above all" despite clear evidence to the alternative is a harmful fiction, as it roots you in place and makes you believe that there is no place better suited for the life you aspire to live. In addition, depending on the nation you lock yourself into, your (largely unconscious) decision to be nationalistic can cause you to be subjected to the military draft, confiscatory levels of taxation and limits on fundamental liberties.
The alternative is as simple as accepting your place of birth as the accident it was. In that context, it might be useful for you to list all the attributes that would make a country best suited to living a fulfilled life as you define it. With list in hand, you have a starting point for your research which, in time, should include jumping on a plane to see the candidates with your own eyes. That's really the only way to find your own special place in this world.
And, per the earlier example of Nancy, don't think you can’t do it… you can.
(One helpful resource for your prognostications is our recently concluded webinar, Internationalizing Your Assets, featuring Doug Casey, Peter Schiff, Mike Maloney and Kevin Brekke. As an aside, for those of you interested in what's going on here in Cafayate, there's also a segment featuring yours truly wandering around the place. Watch the entire webinar, free of charge, by clicking here.)
Religion – The notion that a person must worship a deity is, in most cases, relatively harmless. There's nothing in the least wrong with coming together with neighbors to meditate, sing and listen to homilies and simple morality tales. That this coming together is wrapped in the cloak of religion is, at least to my way of thinking, irrelevant. But when your culture makes it conventional to follow lockstep in the dogma of a religion, then the negative aspects of that religion can weigh heavily on living a fulfilled life.
For examples of what I'm talking about, look no further than Salem, Massachusetts circa 1692 or Saudi Arabia circa today.
And it doesn't even have to be as extreme as that. A close relative, though living hand to mouth, got sucked up in a fundamentalist church that very efficiently lifted about 15% of his meager income off of him. Fortunately, after several years of being drained like a Masai cow, he came to his senses after the suntanned preacher made the mistake of regaling the struggling flock with happy tales of his two-week Hawaiian holiday.
Another friend of ours – an attractive and otherwise intelligent young woman – has adopted religious dogma to such an extent that every suitor is quickly chased away, even though it is her fondest dream to marry and have children. Meanwhile, her biological clock is close to striking midnight.
Now, I'm not saying you shouldn't believe in anything you want… if it makes you happy. But if your religion is causing you guilt, feelings of inadequacy, to accept being subservient (say, to your husband), forced to wear a tent or to be poor, then it's worth giving the whole matter a rethink. On that front, I found the rather controversially titled book God Wants You Dead by Sean Hastings and Paul Rosenberg to be well written and thought provoking.
Marriage – Personally, I find great comfort in marriage. I love my wife, and I love that we share our lives together. Yet, the conventional view that you have to stand in front of a representative of a religion from the Middle Ages, then register your vows with the state seems to me to be another thing altogether. As an alternative, why not draw up a fairly detailed cohabitation contract – one that specifies roles and responsibilities and the obligations each has to each other should one or the other party wish to terminate the contract? That would certainly be unconventional, but I think the actual exercise of thinking the thing through would be beneficial all the way around… certainly to the 50% or so whose conventional marriages ultimately fail.
I can't begin to count the number of people I know whose lives have been devastated by a bad marriage or the consequences of an angry divorce. The list of victims includes husbands or wives trapped (economically or emotionally) in loveless or abusive marriages…. woman with multiple children left high and dry by philandering husbands after years of marriage… men who have been wiped out financially by divorce settlements, then suffered terribly as the angry ex-spouse turned their kids against them…the list goes on.
In any event, the rationale for joining resources with someone you love is compelling. But the consequences of a marriage gone wrong – and they often go wrong – makes me believe there is much to be said for taking an unconventional view when it comes to cohabitation.
Investments – There is a conventional view of investing that generally revolves around pat formulas related to your age and the percentages of stocks and bonds you should own. Investment brokers and financial planners will convince you that the conservative, conventional path is the way to go. And to be fair, when in a secular bull market such as that which ended in 2000, such an approach is going to work out just fine.
But that was then, and this is now… a secular bear market with all the world's largest economies trapped between the anvil of massive government debts and the hammer of unrealistic societal expectations. Something is going to break. The government bank job in Cyprus is just the beginning, and we're nowhere near the end.
Not only is the conventional view that your government is on your side wrong, it is 180 degrees wrong: it's actively working against your interests by limiting your financial freedom, raising your taxes, planting the seeds for a devastating inflation and, almost certainly, in the not-too-distant future forcing you to hand your retirement funds over to government control.
And when the next big hit to the financial system occurs – and given the massive leverage, it could come any day – don't think your "trusted" financial institution is going to have your back, or your money, either.
On the matter of leverage, get a load of this chart… watch out below.
While each of us has to figure out the investment strategies that are right for us, for some time my personal strategy has been focused on spreading our investments across different asset classes, in different institutions, in different political jurisdictions.
With the precious-metals component recently topped off with the bargains created by the flash crash, my latest investment is in productive agricultural land in a business-friendly nation here in the Southern Cone.
While an unconventional investment, the fact that the land is fully paid for and already throwing off a rate of return well above what you could expect in a conventional investment makes it hugely attractive just now. No matter what happens with the electronic markets, that land will still be intact.
Summing up briefly, because we have a long guest article this week, I would say that it behooves us all to periodically stop and examine our life path. What's missing in your life? What seemingly never gets fixed, and unfixed, makes your unhappy or unfulfilled? On examination, you may find that the problem is that you are adhering to convention, and doing so at great personal cost.
Nancy did something that probably not one in a half a million people in her circumstances would have done – break the chains of convention and set out to enjoy the remaining years of what is likely to be a much longer life as a free and independent woman.
I sincerely hope that all of you dear readers are not trapped by convention, or if you are that you won't waste a minute more following a life path set out for you by some institution.
And with that, I want to share what will seem to many – especially those dear readers in Europe – the controversial views of friend Marc Victor, a libertarian criminal defense lawyer who does daily battle in defense of basic liberties. In this case, he defends the right of Americans to own assault rifles.I Am a Peaceful AR-15 Assault Rifle Owner
Marc Victor, Attorney"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurances and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." George Washington
I can't think of any reason I need to own my AR-15 assault[1] rifle. I don't pretend to need it for self defense. I also own several handguns. Any one of my handguns would be adequate to allow me an opportunity to defend myself, or another person, from virtually any act of aggression by another individual. Indeed, I could have easily halted any of the recent gun based rampages, by any of those deranged lunatics, with just one of my handguns. I wish I had been there.
I have needlessly and peacefully owned my AR-15 for many years. I keep my AR-15 securely locked in a gun safe in the very same home where my young children live. My children are aware of my AR-15. Like many other things in life, I have taught my children about guns.
Recently, some of my kids attended a private gun safety class given by a highly experienced gun expert. I enjoyed watching my kids learn about my AR-15. I admit being a bit nostalgic about my AR-15. I spent lots of time learning about every aspect of the AR-15 when I was in Marine Corps boot camp at Parris Island, South Carolina. I also carried an AR-15 when I served my country in Operation Desert Storm in Saudi Arabia. I had it with me when I lived in a dirt hole on the border of Kuwait. It is the weapon I know better than any other.
I own lots of dangerous things I don't need. I don't need my highly modified 600+ hp Z06 Corvette, or my Harley Davidson motorcycle, or that crazy looking knife I sometimes jokingly say was imported directly from the Klingon Empire.[2] All of these things can be used, intentionally or accidentally, to hurt others. Because I have always been careful, peaceful and responsible, none of the things I own have ever been used to hurt another person.[3]
I am an American. As such, none of my rights depend on a showing of need. I am a free man who has the right to define and pursue my happiness in any peaceful way I see fit. The government does not grant me rights. I was born free. The legitimate role of government is to act as my agent to protect my rights, which exist independent of government. Americans do not beg the government for rights nor are they required to demonstrate a "need" for rights.
I cherish lots of my rights for which I can't demonstrate any need. I don't need the right to say highly offensive things to another person. Although I generally don't try to offend other people, I cherish my right to do so. I also cherish, and would aggressively defend, your right to say highly offensive things to me. Defending the rights of people to say things most people agree with is entirely unimpressive. Liberty must always be defended at the edge.
As a criminal defense attorney, I seek out unpopular clients. When I represented Elizabeth Johnson in what is sometimes referred to as the "Baby Gabriel" case, one of the things that attracted me to the idea of representing her was the fact that she was hugely unpopular. Defending the right to a fair trial starts with the unpopular client.
Although I never have anything to hide, I cherish my 4th Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. I would never consent to a warrantless government search. Opportunities to defend the 4th Amendment usually arise in cases where people are engaging in some type of criminal activity. The cost of defending our rights in this area sometimes results in dangerous criminals going free. I frequently advocate for our right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures on behalf of people who think nothing of trespassing on others. Indeed, I always advocate for the right to refuse searches in cases where there is nothing to hide. Protecting liberty in hard cases requires the work of the most committed liberty-minded Americans.
Government never has a more tempting opportunity to increase its size, power and scope, and to curtail the liberties of free people, than during or immediately after a crisis. Indeed, crisis is so tempting an opportunity for government that governments invent crisis whenever possible. This is why "emergency acts" and "wars" on anyone and anything are so popular for governments. Nothing entices people to stop thinking, act impulsively, and to relinquish liberties so easily as a "crisis" or a "tragedy" or an "emergency." We need to be smarter if liberty is to survive.
Our world is unfortunately filled with real tragedies. The recent school shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary in Connecticut, orchestrated by a deranged lunatic with several guns, was one of the worst tragedies I have seen in my life. However, because of the magnitude of this tragedy, much like the September 11 tragedy, it presents an almost unprecedented opportunity for government to curtail liberty. Don't be fooled!
Banning Guns Is Un-American and Immoral
"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …" Samuel Adams
The right to peacefully own a gun is such an important and fundamental American concept that it was enshrined in the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution. Millions of peaceful Americans own guns for various reasons, none of which need to be justified to the government or anyone else. Peaceful people owning guns is not a problem needing a solution. Countless Americans will peacefully own and even use their AR-15 weapons today without incident.
Ignoring the obvious Constitutional problems with simply banning guns, such action would require immorally initiating force against peaceful people. People who abhor guns have no right to impose their will on peaceful gun owners. So long as peaceful gun ownership poses no harm or substantial risk of harm to others, it ought to be a protected activity like all other peaceful activities conducted by competent adults.
Attempting to punish everyone for the acts of one or several deranged lunatics is immoral. Like most AR-15 owners, my AR-15 ownership has always been peaceful. Seeking to deprive me of my AR-15 because others have irresponsibly used theirs is akin to revoking my driver's license because others have irresponsibly driven drunk, resulting in tragedy. People need to be held accountable for their own actions, but not for the actions of others.
The Idea of Banning Guns Is Foolishness
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Ben Franklin
It is estimated there are approximately 300 million guns in the United States. I suspect that estimate is conservative. The nature of criminals is such that they do not comply with the law. As such, we can predict, with absolute certainty, that the violent criminals who currently possess guns will not comply with any law requiring them to relinquish their guns. Additionally, I suspect many peaceful gun owners would similarly never comply with any law requiring them to relinquish their guns. As such, any law banning guns would be entirely ineffective and would actually make matters worse. All peaceful law-abiding gun owners would be disarmed and more vulnerable to violent criminals.
We already have laws absolutely prohibiting convicted felons from possessing guns. As a criminal defense attorney, I regularly represent such people deemed "prohibited possessors" for the crime of simply possessing guns. Nobody working in the criminal justice system could seriously assert that laws banning guns for felons have been successful. A deranged lunatic named William Spengler ambushed and murdered two firemen in upstate New York on December 24, 2012. He was a "prohibited possessor" who previously served 17 years in prison. The law absolutely banned him from having guns. He had several. Thankfully, Mr. Spengler terminated his killing spree by shooting himself after being confronted and engaged by an off duty armed police officer who happened to be present. There is no doubt many more would have been murdered had an armed man not been present.
Even if we strained our imaginations to think banning guns could result in abolishing all guns currently in existence, a gun ban would still be futile. If the failed war on drugs has taught us anything, it is that making something illegal, when there still exists a demand for the illegal item, absolutely results in a lucrative black market. There is no doubt a lucrative, vibrant, and violent black market in guns will immediately grow to whatever size is necessary to manufacture and supply violent criminals with guns. Such violent criminals would be enticed to engage in even more criminal endeavors knowing their law-abiding victims are entirely unable to defend themselves against such aggressions.
Whether we like the conclusion or not, like marijuana, guns are here to stay. The facts of reality are such that bad guys with guns are an unfortunate fact of life. Our focus should be on how we deal with this fact rather than wishing the fact was otherwise.
Gun Regulations Never Reduce Gun Violence and Usually Increase Violent Crime
"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … " Thomas Jefferson
I realize it seems counterintuitive, but it is true. The same unintended results occur in many other contexts as well. Just like minimum wage and rent control laws hurt the poor,[4] banning alcohol results in more alcohol-related problems,[5] raising taxes sometimes results in less revenue for the government,[6] government spending results in fewer jobs,[7] banning guns usually increases gun violence and never reduces it.
The examples of gun control resulting in increased gun violence are easy to find. In 1976, after Washington D.C. instituted the toughest gun control laws in our nation, its murder rate increased dramatically during a time when the nation’s overall gun related murder rate decreased by 2%. Washington D.C., the nation's leader in gun control, became known as the nation's murder capital.[8] A comparison of states which allow legally concealed guns to states which outlaw concealed carrying of firearms reveals no difference in overall gun-related violence.
In 1982, when Kennesaw, Georgia passed a law requiring a firearm in every home, not only did crime not escalate, but violent crime sharply decreased[9] and has remained that way for decades. Indeed, Kennesaw, Georgia claims to have the lowest crime rate of any comparable city its size in the nation.
These counterintuitive results are not limited to examples within the United States. Australia boldly banned all semi-automatic firearms, including many rifles and shotguns, in 1997. Indeed, it was a gun grabber's dream; approximately 640,000 firearms were confiscated and destroyed. This misguided Australian policy resulted in an armed robbery increase of 69%, an assault involving firearms increase of 28%, a gun-related murder increase of 19%, and a home invasion increase of 21%. Violent criminals love gun bans.
I realize the proponents of gun control also offer statistics. However, when our most respected, unbiased and professional scientific and research organizations analyze the issue, their conclusions do not support the gun control advocates. In 2004, the National Academy of Sciences reviewed 253 journal articles, 99 books and 43 government publications evaluating 80 gun-control measures. Researchers could not identify a single regulation that reduced violent crime, suicide or accidents.
In 2003, the Centers for Disease Control analyzed ammunition bans, restrictions on acquisition of firearms, waiting periods, registration, licensing, child access prevention and zero tolerance laws. After their analysis, the Centers for Disease Control concluded there was no conclusive evidence that any gun control laws reduced gun violence. Foreign researchers have also come to the same conclusion. In Australia in 2008, a peer reviewed study at the University of Sydney reached virtually the same conclusions as both the National Academy of Sciences and the Centers for Disease Control. Gun control measures simply do not reduce gun violence.
Although President Obama appears excited about the notion of banning guns, I have not heard him order a ban on the very guns used to protect him. Apparently, when it comes to his protection, President Obama prefers to be protected by people armed with guns. Indeed, I suspect none of these gun ban advocates would hesitate to call 911 and request help from people armed with guns if they were faced with an intruder in their homes in the middle of the night. I fail to understand why we can't all agree that guns save lives.
Our Culture of Violence
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" Benjamin Franklin
Unfortunately, we do have a culture of violence in America. It did not spontaneously arise. It is entirely our fault. There are several contributing factors.[10] The single biggest contributing factor to our culture of violence is that our society no longer adheres to the once basic notion that initiating force against non-aggressors is wrong. We no longer recognize the sovereignty of the individual. Our laws are replete with instances of legal trespass against peaceful people. Rather than living in a democratic republic where most decisions are left to the property[11] owner, we now have an unfettered democracy where anything goes so long as the majority of voters agree. This is not what was intended by the founders of our country, and it has no connection to freedom. Without freedom, there simply is no opportunity for peace.
Democracy and freedom are not the same. To some extent, they are incompatible. Freedom requires that the owner retains jurisdiction over his or her own body, time, money and other property. Democracy puts the voting majority in charge of whatever is up for a vote. Said another way, democracy is akin to mob rule. At the infancy of our country, few things were subject to majority vote via democracy. Today, virtually anything and everything can be put to a vote. The jurisdiction of government has far exceeded anything envisioned by our founding fathers.
The drug war is a fundamental example of government, or the voting majority, immorally exercising its jurisdiction over the bodies of competent adults. Despite the laws, many competent adults insist on controlling their own bodies. This has dramatically increased the amount of violence and conflict in our society. Indeed, until the drug war ends and we once again start respecting the sovereignty of the individual, there is nothing that can be done to effectively end the culture of violence destroying our society. The good news is that by simply ending the drug war, we can immediately and dramatically reduce the culture of violence.
To be sure, few countries have such an intense war on drugs as we have in the United States. Indeed, our drug laws are entirely draconian, and we imprison far more people than any other country in the world. Our spending on the drug war will soon be approaching 100 billion dollars per year. As a result of all this drug war generated violence, we have a very high corresponding rate of gun violence. I have personally represented many clients charged with violent gun related crimes resulting from drug war related issues. Indeed, much of the gun related violence I see, as a criminal defense attorney working in the justice system for the past two decades, stems from the drug war.
The United States does not have the highest rate of gun violence in the world. It should not be a surprise that several countries at the forefront of the drug war have an even higher rate of gun related homicide than the United States. The firearm related homicide rate, as a percentage of population, is higher in Mexico, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala and Paraguay. The United States spends millions of dollars ramping up the drug war in these countries. There is no doubt that several other drug war involved countries have even higher firearm related homicide rates than the United States as well.
I would be remiss if I failed to point out that these awful homicide rates in other countries persist despite much stricter gun control laws than in the United States. Indeed, Mexico has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world. Its laws effectively prohibit gun ownership. Not only do guns remain widely available in Mexico, but their gun related homicide rate outpaces ours. The same can be said of all these drug war countries.
Attempting to blame our culture of violence on the availability of guns is entirely erroneous. Canada has a gun culture similar to the United States. Indeed, their ratio of gun ownership as compared to the United States is roughly equivalent. However, Canada enjoys a firearm related homicide rate dramatically lower than in the United States. It is noteworthy to point out that people who live in countries like Switzerland and Israel have greater access to even fully automatic weapons and have higher rates of gun ownership than in the United States, but enjoy much lower firearm related homicide rates. The number of guns simply isn't the problem.
Our culture of violence is more directly attributable to anti-freedom government policies which diminish and disrespect the rights of the individual. Guns, like other tools, can be used for both good and bad purposes. Demonizing the tool, while piling on more anti-freedom regulations and laws, without getting to the root cause of the violence, is exactly the wrong approach. We will never achieve a more peaceful society until we recognize that competent adults own themselves and the drug war is reduced to an awful historical mistake.
How to Stop a Bad Guy with a Gun
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." Richard Henry Lee
Dangerous, violent people should not have guns. Additionally, people should not shoplift. We already have laws against both. Notwithstanding our laws, dangerous, violent people continue to, and always will be able to, obtain guns. Likewise, people continue to shoplift. Regarding the shoplifting problem, major retailers have accepted that shoplifting remains a fact of life and they have endeavored to combat the problem with private security guards, cameras, RFID chips, etc. As I often represent such people accused of shoplifting, I know these rational combative measures against shoplifting are reasonably successful.
As a society, we need to accept the reality that bad guys will continue to get guns notwithstanding our laws. We need to devise appropriate, rational and effective measures to combat this foreseeable reality. Well-intentioned and famous Hollywood actors simply saying, "Never Again!" or simply passing more gun regulation laws will not combat the problem.
As the tragic shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut proves, the passing of more laws is entirely the wrong approach. Federal law prohibits the presence of guns in schools. It is clear the deranged Mr. Adam Lanza was entirely undeterred by this federal law. Indeed, this law may have encouraged Mr. Lanza to work his horrific violence at the Sandy Hook Elementary School knowing federal law provides that nobody could have the capacity to stop him. One unintended consequence of this federal law has been to create a guaranteed victim zone, comprised of children who are unprotected sitting ducks for any deranged lunatic such as Mr. Lanza.
Additionally, Connecticut's gun control laws also proved to be entirely ineffective. By stealing his mother's gun, Mr. Lanza exempted himself from any laws regarding background checks, waiting periods, permits, licenses, etc. Neither unarmed security at the front door nor the presence of heroic yet unarmed adults at the school had any chance of stopping Mr. Lanza's murderous rampage. Even the courageous school principal, who dashed toward Mr. Lanza in a heroic effort to protect her innocent students, had absolutely no chance and was therefore also tragically murdered.
There can be no legitimate criticism of the local police. Their trained and armed police officers arrived as quickly as one could reasonably expect upon learning of the tragedy. However, by the time they arrived, the incident was completely over. They were not able to save even one life. The only thing that stopped the deranged Mr. Lanza was the deranged Mr. Lanza himself. One can only wonder how many more lives would have been needlessly taken had Mr. Lanza decided to continue shooting others rather than shoot himself.
I wish I could have been there that day with my AR-15 rifle or even my .40 caliber handgun. This story would have had a different ending. What a shame that not even one peaceful, responsible, trained and armed teacher or parent could have been present, when Mr. Lanza arrived, to do the one thing that actually could have avoided this tragedy: shoot him. I can say, with absolute certainty, that one well-placed round from a gun could have saved the lives of everyone at the Sandy Hook Elementary that day.
I don't know if that well-placed round would have been the first shot fired, but I do know at least there would have been a chance to stop Mr. Lanza before he decided to stop himself. As a parent of five children in school, I prefer that my children are no longer unprotected sitting ducks at a federally mandated gun-free zone in school. The only way to stop these types of gun related tragedies is by force.
I recognize that some parents feel differently than I do. For reasons I do not understand, they prefer to have their children at school totally unprotected in federally mandated gun-free zones. I respect their rights to have their children at schools which comply with whatever rules they deem appropriate. However, the current state of federal law prohibits parents from choosing schools which could actually protect their children against the horrendous acts of deranged bad guys like Mr. Lanza. Just like at my home, I would prefer to have my kids in schools where responsible adults, with adequate training, have immediate and safe access to firearms. I, like many parents, don't want my kids to be unprotected sitting ducks while they are at school.
I fail to understand why the anti-gun people find it appropriate to thwart my choice as a responsible parent. As I have stated, I respect the rights of the anti-gun parents to send their kids to schools without guns. I have heard their protestations that my plan to have armed people at school would not work. I don't know why their judgment should be substituted for mine regarding the safety of my kids.
Some of those parents claim that armed people at the school could make no difference if such a shooting was to occur. They are entirely wrong. There are many examples of occasions where armed people successfully terminated some deranged person's gun rampage. Here is a short list of some notable examples compiled by the Libertarian Party:
* A 1997 high school shooting in Pearl, Mississippi was halted by the school's vice principal after he retrieved the Colt .45 he kept in his truck.
* A 1998 middle school shooting ended when a man living next door heard gunfire and apprehended the shooter with his shotgun.
* A 2002 terrorist attack at an Israeli school was quickly stopped by an armed teacher and a school guard.
* A 2002 law school shooting in Grundy, Virginia came to an abrupt conclusion when students carrying firearms confronted the shooter.
* A 2007 mall shooting in Ogden, Utah ended when an armed off-duty police officer intervened.
* A 2009 workplace shooting in Houston, Texas was halted by two coworkers who carried concealed handguns.
* A 2012 church shooting in Aurora, Colorado was stopped by a member of the congregation carrying a gun.
* At the recent mall shooting in Portland, Oregon the gunman took his own life minutes after being confronted by a shopper carrying a concealed weapon.
Moreover, the Internet is full of videos documenting peaceful armed people thwarting a violent criminal's attempt to victimize others.[12] I fail to understand why the anti-gun crowd refuses to acknowledge guns save lives. It is estimated, and there are several scholarly studies to support, that guns are used to prevent crimes between 700,000 and 2.5 million times each year.[13] While I agree there are examples of bad guys doing bad things with guns, we should also agree there are millions of armed good guys who successfully and frequently stop bad guys with guns as well.
Three Reasons Americans Have a Right to Own Guns
"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" Patrick Henry
There are three main reasons why Americans, or any free people, should have a right to keep and bear firearms. First, free people have a right to self defense. This is the most basic of all rights. Although government can legitimately act as one's agent to assist in protecting against another's aggression, the individual need not delegate or rely upon another person or entity for the exercise of that right. To deny a free and competent adult the right of self defense is to deny such a person their sovereignty. No society can be considered a free society, or even a civilized society, without the basic right to individual defense of one's self.
The second reason for a right to keep and bear arms is to deter possible foreign invasions. I acknowledge we live in a world where mass destruction is an option for many foreign governments. However, history has shown that foreign governments generally like to advance on territory they seek to make their own. As such, a radioactive wasteland is not the preferred trophy of most hostile governments.
During World War II, Hitler's Germany advanced against much of Europe. However, Switzerland, despite its vast gold resources making it an extraordinary prize, was not one of those places advanced upon by Hitler. One rational explanation for this lack of aggression by Hitler was the reasonable conclusion that Switzerland, with its exceptionally high proportion of civilian gun ownership, would have been an unusually difficult target.
During the same time period, it is speculated that Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto reached a similar conclusion regarding a possible invasion of the United States. Some have attributed the comment, "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass" to the Japanese Admiral.[14] Given our high proportion of civilian gun ownership, it also seems a reasonable conclusion.
Indeed, it gives me a sense of pride, as I know it does many other veterans and other proud Americans, to know that in the unlikely event our country ever was invaded, we would not need to sit idly by, helpless, to assist in defending our country. Rather, much like the other civilian militia that was so instrumental in assisting to win our independence from King George III, we may also be able to assist in some way.
The third reason for a right to keep and bear arms is, as Thomas Jefferson stated, "The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Citizens have a right to keep and bear arms as a defense against their own government. Further, Mr. Jefferson also stated, "When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty."
The founders of our nation believed people must always preserve their right to resistance and revolution against their own government. "And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson.
The founding fathers of our nation were keenly aware of the potential for governments to ban guns, then curtail liberty, enslave, torture or even murder their own naïve and trusting citizens. One can only wonder what the founding fathers would say had they been aware of the human slaughter suffered in the 20th century by unarmed people at the hands of their own gun grabbing governments.
In the 20th century alone, the death toll resulting from governments murdering their own disarmed citizens after guns were legally banned is estimated at 56 million.[15] Our founding fathers knew any government, including ours, has the potential to become tyrannical and even deadly towards its own citizens. I suspect many or even most of those 56 million murdered by their own governments believed their government could always be trusted. Let's learn from history.
"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." Samuel Adams.
As an aside, Marc Victor has agreed to join the faculty for the 2013 Casey Research Summit, being held October 4-6 in Tucson, Arizona. As this will be the only Casey Research summit held this year, we're going all out to make it spectacular. On that front, next week we'll have big news on the faculty. Watch your email for more.
[1] Rifles don't "assault" people. People assault people. Calling the AR-15 an "assault" rifle is inflammatory. I have been known to sometimes choose inflammatory titles for my articles. Like any other weapon, the AR-15 should be used solely for defensive purposes. I suspect the vast majority of people who own them, intend to use them only defensively.
[2] See Star Trek.
[3] I realize there are some things I could own which, by their very nature, cannot be owned by me in a community without posing a substantial risk of harm to others. Reasonable people can disagree about what things truly and honestly fit into this category.
[4] See http://cameroneconomics.com/Books/unintendedconsequences.pdf
[5] See http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa157.pdf
[6] See the Laffer curve. Higher taxes inhibit economic growth and encourage people to conduct business in the black market. I am never in favor of higher taxes, and I always favor less revenue for the government.
[7] For a short video on this point, see http://www.cato.org/multimedia/cato-video/government-spending-doesnt-create-jobs
[8] See http://gunowners.org/sk0601.htm for an interesting but informal investigation into the efficacy of Washington D.C.'s gun control efforts.
[9] Kennesaw City officials claim an 89% drop in the overall crime rate.
[10] We have too many absentee parents. A cradle-to-grave government does not replace a set of involved parents. Our society is too desensitized to violence and wars and not interested enough in fostering peace. We have strayed from the old-school values of hard work, individual responsibility, honesty, integrity, discipline, tolerance, patience and respect. The government can't fix this problem.
[11] I refer to "property" in its most general sense to include one's body, money, possessions and time.
[12] For one example that occurred on July 13, 2012, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpBXkvigads
(Message over 64 KB, truncated)
I guess it depends upon your views on intellectual property. I notice that David Galland himself apparently chose to publicize personal details about someone he knows and apologize for it in print, instead of obtaining permission in advance:
"(Quick aside to Nancy: If you read this and surmise your role in today's musings, please accept my apology in advance for any descriptors used that you take issue with)."
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
I second John's take on the matter! Giving me half a page of legal gobledeegook will always be superseded by your saying "go ahead, pass it on!"
Marcy
The Casey Daily Dispatch is FREE. Note these lines:
"Sign Up Now
Get Casey Daily Dispatch delivered to your inbox
Sign Up"
Anybody can sign up.
Yes, they do have paid subscription services, and I do subscribe to some of them. Those reports I never forward.
Nina